Rechtscherd v. Accommodation Bank
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. The employer has the right to say how his business shall be transacted, and the rules which he lays down for the government o£ that business must be observed by the employees unless they are in violation of law or morals.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. The employer has the right to say how his business shall be transacted, and the rules which he lays down for the government o£ that business must be observed by the employees unless they are in violation of law or morals. (Switzer v. Connet, 11 Mo. 89.) The employee who receives a reward is bound to observe with care and diligence the interests of his master or employer, and must exercise the same vigilance and attention his employer would have done. (1 Blackst. Com. 428, notes; Oathir v. Bell, 4 Campb. 183.) The agent must strictly follow the instructions of…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
Plaintiff brought his action on a certificate of deposit for $2,600, which defendant, by its answer, admits to be due.
Defendant, in its answer, sets up a counter-claim, and states that before the plaintiff’s action accrued, the plaintiff, in consideration that defendant would receive him into its employ as collector and agent and pay him a salary of one thousand dollars per annum, promised and agreed with defendant that he would carefully and diligently attend to his duties as such collector and agent, and safely and prudently care for and deliver over and account for to defendant any moneys…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Switzer & Switzer v. ConnettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1847
3Cited by1 opinion
- Haynes v. CarpenterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900