Hinton v. Law
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to Howard Circuit Court. 1. That Raymond, the master and captain -of the boat, as such, was authorized to employ a '■■clerk, to render services for the owners of the boat whilst engaged in their service in its navigation of our rivers, and to settle with him for such services, as the agent of the owners, so as thereby to hind them, in like manner as if they had employed the clerk in their own proper persons.
Read the full summary
ERROR to Howard Circuit Court. 1. That Raymond, the master and captain -of the boat, as such, was authorized to employ a '■■clerk, to render services for the owners of the boat whilst engaged in their service in its navigation of our rivers, and to settle with him for such services, as the agent of the owners, so as thereby to hind them, in like manner as if they had employed the clerk in their own proper persons. See the following authorities: Collyer on Partnership, page 681$ Story on Partnership, sections 40, 41, 418, 419 to 452$ see Story on Agency, secs. 119,120. 2. That Raymond having…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
This was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiff in error against *702the defendants in error for services rendered as clerk of the steamboat latan. It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff and defendants were the owners of the boat on which the services were rendered for which this suit was brought; that the boat was employed in the navigation of the Missouri river; that the master and captain of the boat, who was also a part owner, employed the plaintiff as clerk. The plaintiff commenced his services in June, 1844, and continued employed until the 29th November following, about which…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hewitt, Ruffner & Co. v. SturdevantCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1844
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hendy v. MarchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Ferem v. Olson & MahonyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917