McAllister v. Budd
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. No principle of law is better established than that an agent, acting within the scope of his authority, cannot be held personally liable. That where an agent, by his contract, makes the principal liable, he is not held individually; especially where a corporation is principal, which can act only by agents.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. No principle of law is better established than that an agent, acting within the scope of his authority, cannot be held personally liable. That where an agent, by his contract, makes the principal liable, he is not held individually; especially where a corporation is principal, which can act only by agents. The insurance company was bound by the act of Budd in drawing the bill, and parol evidence was admissible to charge them upon the note in an action at law. (3 Am. Jur. 78 & 79; Spittle v. Lavender, 8 Mees & W. 452; Conro v. Port Henry Iron Co. 12…
1Opinion of the CourtBates, Judge
This suit charges the defendants as drawers of a bill of exchange, as follows:
“ $1303 12. — St. Louis, Dec. 1,1858. Three months from date, pay to the order of Messrs. McAllister & Co. thirteen hundred and three TVo dollars, value received, and charge *420the same to account of — Geo. K. Budd & Son, Agents. To State Fire and Marino Insurance Co., Harrisburg, Pa.”
The plaintiff was meant by the name McAllister & Co. The bill was accepted by the drawee, but not paid, and was protested for nonpayment, and notice given the defendants.
The defendants answered that they, as the authorized agents of said…
2Cited by1 opinion
- F. B. Collins Inv. Co. v. EasleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914