Sigerson v. Pomeroy
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL EBOM ST. LOUIS CIBOUIT COUBT. This was an action of assumpsit by the appellees against the appellant. Com-vmon counts for money had and received, and for money paid, laid out and (expended.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EBOM ST. LOUIS CIBOUIT COUBT. This was an action of assumpsit by the appellees against the appellant. Com-vmon counts for money had and received, and for money paid, laid out and (expended. Plea the general issue provided by Statute of 1847. At the trial (the case appeared to he, that the plaintiffs were commission and forwarding merchants in the city of St. Louis, and had advertised that they would ship goods to New Orleans, Liverpool and other places ; that the defendant, in 1848, a-t different times from the 1st to the 18th of April, delivered to the plaintiffs, lard, pork and…
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, J.
From the above statement, the points necessary for our adjudication arise from the instructions given, as well as those refused by the court below. The general principles involved in this case will not be disputed. The factor must strictly follow the orders and instructions of his principal, and a departure from them will be at his own risk. If the factor shall, with proper care and diligence, faithfully and bona fide carry out the orders of his principal, and notwithstanding he does this, a loss shall still accrue, this loss must fall on the principal. The factor’s making advances upon the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Iron Mountain Bank v. MurdockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Mansur v. BottsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- St. Louis Gunning Advertising Co. v. Wanamaker & BrownMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Nicholson v. GoldenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- F. G. Barton Cotton Co. v. VardeleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1925