Bernet & Craft v. Hockaday
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Clinton Circuit Court.—Hon. Wm. S. Herndon, Judge. (1) A misfeasance on the part of the agent must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Mechem on Agency, .p. 388, sec. 503, and cases cited. A mere scintilla of evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict of a jury in such a case. Powell v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 84; Commissioners v. Clark, 94 IT.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Clinton Circuit Court.—Hon. Wm. S. Herndon, Judge. (1) A misfeasance on the part of the agent must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Mechem on Agency, .p. 388, sec. 503, and cases cited. A mere scintilla of evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict of a jury in such a case. Powell v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 84; Commissioners v. Clark, 94 IT. S. 284. (2) The evidence in support of the plaintiffs’ petition being sufficient to make out their case, and there being no-substantial countervailing evidence, a verdict for defendant will be set aside on appeal. Lionberger…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
—At the dates herein mentioned, plaintiffs were commission merchants at St. Louis, engaged in selling four consigned to them, and the defendant Hockaday was a manufacturer of flour at Plattsburg, Missouri.
In the latter part of May, 1892, defendant shipped two car loads of flour to plaintiffs to be sold on the St. Louis market. A few days after the shipment, the *629defendant drew on the plaintiff for $500, and the draft was paid as an advancement. There was great delay in selling the flour and it was not disposed of till in the January of the following year. According to plaintiffs evidence, they…
2Cited by1 opinion
- H. W. Benedict & Co. v. Inland Grain Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1899