Powell v. Roberts
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry C. Riley, Judge. All the testimony conclusively established the fact that at the time J. T. Hunt collected the money from Phillips, the partnership of Roberts & Hunt was extinct. This being true there could be no liability on the part of F. D. Roberts to answer for the tortious acts of J. T. Hunt in converting the money so collected to his own private use.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry C. Riley, Judge. All the testimony conclusively established the fact that at the time J. T. Hunt collected the money from Phillips, the partnership of Roberts & Hunt was extinct. This being true there could be no liability on the part of F. D. Roberts to answer for the tortious acts of J. T. Hunt in converting the money so collected to his own private use. After the publication of the notice of dissolution of the partnership,' all the power of J. T. Hunt to bind the partnership was gone. ' Knaus v. Givens, 110 Mo. 58, 19 S. W. 535; Dudley v.…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
The facts in this case are undisputed, and those material to- the point to be decided will be related. Prior to March 11, 1902, P. D. Roberts, the appellant, and J. R. Hunt, under the firm name of Roberts & Hunt, were partners in the practice of law in Carutkersville. Powell intrusted a promissory note to the firm for collection. The note was sued on before a justice of the peace and judgment obtained February 25, 1902. An execution was issued the next day and on April 14th, while the writ was in the constable’s hands, Hunt compromised the judgment with the debtor for about half the amount…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bryant v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Dean v. McFaulSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
3Cited by1 opinion
- Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson v. GilmoreMissouri Court of Appeals · 1994