Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Huttig Sash & Door Co. v. Gitchell

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 2, 1897Published

Appeal from the St. Louis County Circuit Court. — Hon. Rudolph Hirzel, Judge.

1Concurrence

CONCUBBING OPINION.

Biggs, J.

There was evidence tending to prove that Rowden had full authority to adjust the plaintiff’s claim. The letter written by Gritchell to plaintiff and the subsequent dealings between Rowden and the defendants concerning the settlement, furnish satisfactory evidence of the agency. Rowden first offered the note in suit to plaintiff with the conditional indorsement, but the plaintiff refused to accept it, unless the indorsement was made unconditional. Rowden left plaintiff’s office and went directly to Gritchell’s office, where he had a conversation with Gritchell.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Rhoda v. AnnisSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1883
  2. Corrister v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
  3. Richardson v. PalmerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API