Rogers v. Gage
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Clinton Circuit Court.—Hon. W. S. Herndon, Judge. (1) A certificate of acknowledgment which recites that “Berkley & Bro.” appeared and acknowledged the instrument, without further specification of the party who acknowledged it, is fatally defective. Hughes v. Morris, 110 Mo. 306; Sloan v. Machine Go., 70 Mo. 206. (2) J. N. Berkley was not authorized to execute mortgages in the firm name. To execute sealedinstruments, the partner must have express authority.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Clinton Circuit Court.—Hon. W. S. Herndon, Judge. (1) A certificate of acknowledgment which recites that “Berkley & Bro.” appeared and acknowledged the instrument, without further specification of the party who acknowledged it, is fatally defective. Hughes v. Morris, 110 Mo. 306; Sloan v. Machine Go., 70 Mo. 206. (2) J. N. Berkley was not authorized to execute mortgages in the firm name. To execute sealedinstruments, the partner must have express authority. Givinnv. Boolcer, 24 Mo. App. 290; Henry County v. Gates, 26 Mo. 315; Parsons on Partnership, 178. (3) The mortgage…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This is an action of replevin, the principal question being which of two mortgagees has the superior right to the live stock in controversy. Defendants having obtained possession of the stock, plaintiffs instituted this action. It was referred, by the circuit court, to J. W. Alexander, Esq., as referee, whose finding and report was in favor of defendants, and which report was confirmed by the circuit court.
Plaintiffs introduced in evidence three chattel mortgages made by J. N. & W.- H. Berkley, dated, respectively, November 11, 1885, January 8, 1887, and February 17, 1891. Defendants…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kellogg v. LovelyMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Meyer Bros. v. CookSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- Funk v. PaulWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- Winter v. LandphereSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- Edmonston v. WilsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Shoobert v. De MottaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Demers v. GrahamMontana Supreme Court · 1907
- Holt v. LucasSupreme Court of Kansas · 1908
- John Deere Plow Co. v. GoochMissouri Court of Appeals · 1936