Turner v. Thomas
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Boyle, J. Where a written contract, not tinder seal, is executed by an agent, it is not necessary in order to bind the principal that it should be executed in the name and as the act of the principal: it will be sufficient if from the whole instrument it can be gathered from the terms thereof that the party describes himself and acts as agent, and intends thereby to bind the principal and not himself. — Klosterman v. Loos, 58 Mo. 293;…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Boyle, J. Where a written contract, not tinder seal, is executed by an agent, it is not necessary in order to bind the principal that it should be executed in the name and as the act of the principal: it will be sufficient if from the whole instrument it can be gathered from the terms thereof that the party describes himself and acts as agent, and intends thereby to bind the principal and not himself. — Klosterman v. Loos, 58 Mo. 293; Ferris v. Thaw, 5 Mo. App. 280; Musser v. Johnson, 42 Mo. 74 ; McClellan v. Reynolds, 49 Mo. 312 ; Washington Ins. Co.…
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
This is an action by payee against maker, upon two negotiable promissory notes, one payable in ninety days and the other in six months after date. Each note is payable to the order of John A. Turner, and is signed “ W. C. Thomas, Pres. Moniteau Coal & Coke Co.” The answer of defendant is verified by his affidavit. It denies that either of the notes “ are or ever were his notes, acts, or deeds, or that he executed said notes, or either of them, as his notes, acts, or deeds.” The answer further denies that defendant owes or ever did owe to plaintiff the sum mentioned in the note, or any sum…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Greenway v. JamesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864
- Musser v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Smith v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
- Corby v. WeddleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- McClellan v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Jones v. RushSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Madison v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- White v. MiddlesworthMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Moore v. DawsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1925
- Ziegler v. FallonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.