Henry Pauk & Sons Manufacturing Co. v. American Car Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St, Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. John A. Talty, Judge. If Kobusch, in buying tbe machine in controversy, had no authority to bind the American Car Company, whom he afterward sought to charge with the purchase price, by instructing plaintiff to make out the bill against them, then Kobusch is himself liable.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St, Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. John A. Talty, Judge. If Kobusch, in buying tbe machine in controversy, had no authority to bind the American Car Company, whom he afterward sought to charge with the purchase price, by instructing plaintiff to make out the bill against them, then Kobusch is himself liable. Byars v. Doore’s Aclm’r, 20 Mo. 284; Coffman v. Harrison, 24 Id. 524; Lúpsley v. McKinstry, 38 Id. 245, and citations; Wright v. Baldwin, 51 Mo. 269; Ritchie v. Bass, 15 La. Ann. 668; Weare v. Gove, 44 N. H; 196; Keener v. Harrod, 2 Md. 63. Where property is left on…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
*347ArepresJmÍtion act for another: *346The plaintiff sued the American Car Company, the St. Louis Car Company, and George *347Kobusch, on an account. It is charged in the petition that the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendants a machine called a “patent molding Sander,” of the agreed and reasonable value of $650. The answers of the defendants were general denials. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence the court instructed that under the pleadings and evidence the St. Louis Car Company and Kobusch were not liable in the action. The liability of the American Car Company was submitted to the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dung v. . ParkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Baltzen v. . NicolayNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Wright v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
3Cited by1 opinion
- Griswold v. HaasMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909