La Grange & Monticello Plane Road Co. v. Mays
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Lewis Circuit Cowt. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. The parol evidence was inadmissible to vary, limit, qualify or release the obligation of Mays. (1 Greenl. Ev. § 275 ; 1 Pet. 591; 9 Wheat. 587; 8 Mo. 391.) Waltman was not agent for the company. Even if the agreement had been authorized by the company, it would not have been binding.
Read the full summary
Error to Lewis Circuit Cowt. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. The parol evidence was inadmissible to vary, limit, qualify or release the obligation of Mays. (1 Greenl. Ev. § 275 ; 1 Pet. 591; 9 Wheat. 587; 8 Mo. 391.) Waltman was not agent for the company. Even if the agreement had been authorized by the company, it would not have been binding. (See 4 Kern. 355.) The agreement was secret between Waltman and Mays, and therefore contrary to public policy and void. (18 Pick. 472; 19 Pick. 275.) The work was entered on and money expended, and this was sufficientto fix…
1Opinion of the CourtEwing, Judge
This was an action, commenced before a justice of the peace by the plaintiff in error, to recover an assessment or call on the subscription of the defendant to the stock of the company. There was judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant took an appeal to the circuit court, where the judgment being for defendant plaintiff brings the cause to this court by writ of error.
The plaintiff is a corporation organized under the law of the state authorizing the formation of associations to construct plank roads, approved February 27, 1851. The facts appearing on the trial are, that at the time…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Haskell v. SellsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1883
- Newland Hotel Co. v. WrightMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898