Raike v. Manhattan Rubber Manufacturing Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.—Hon. Walter B. Douglas, Judge. (1) There was no authority upon the part of Watrous to enter into the contract of December 12, 1902 with the plaintiff. This is shown by the contract itself. It limited Watrous’ employment to the St. Louis store. He was employed as manager of their St. Louis store. Yogel y. St. Louis Museum, Opera & Fine Art Gallery, 8 Mo. App. 587; Atelee y.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.—Hon. Walter B. Douglas, Judge. (1) There was no authority upon the part of Watrous to enter into the contract of December 12, 1902 with the plaintiff. This is shown by the contract itself. It limited Watrous’ employment to the St. Louis store. He was employed as manager of their St. Louis store. Yogel y. St. Louis Museum, Opera & Fine Art Gallery, 8 Mo. App. 587; Atelee y. Fink, 75 Mo. 100. (2) There was no authority for him tojagree to pay this appellant the sum of $100 per month as additional allowance. There was no authority for him to employ the…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
This action was instituted by plaintiff to recover a salary alleged to be due him from the defendant for a year’s employment. The contract of employment relied on was in a writing, dated December 12, 1902, signed by the plaintiff for himself and by the defendant company by “E. P. Watrous, Manager,” and witnessed by Dwight D. Johnson. At the time the writing was signed plaintiff resided in the city of Terrell, Texas, and was connected with a hardware business there. The contract provided, in substance, that the defendant company employed Raike, in the “capacity of a special agent” for one…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brooks v. JamesonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
3Cited by1 opinion
- James Bradford Co. v. Edward Hill's Son & Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1922