Bank of Commerce v. Bernero
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Thayer, J. An unequivocal promise to pay the note was not a ratification. — Middleton v. Railroad, 62 Mo. 579; Cravens v. GiTleland, 63 Mo. 28; Sauer v. Brinclcer, 77 Mo. 294. There was no estoppel. — Fuzz v. Burr, 7 Mo. App. 588. The acts of the defendant amounted to a ratification. — Hefner y.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Thayer, J. An unequivocal promise to pay the note was not a ratification. — Middleton v. Railroad, 62 Mo. 579; Cravens v. GiTleland, 63 Mo. 28; Sauer v. Brinclcer, 77 Mo. 294. There was no estoppel. — Fuzz v. Burr, 7 Mo. App. 588. The acts of the defendant amounted to a ratification. — Hefner y. VandolaJi, 62 111. 483; Dow v. Spenney, 29 Mo. 286; BanJc v. Gay, 63 Mo. 33, 40. And worked an estoppel.— Barber v. Gingell, 3 Esp. 60; Grout v. DeWolf, 1 R. I. 393; Forsyth v. Day, 46 Me. 176; Story on Agency, sect. 56; CMdsey v. Porter, 21 Pa. 390; Bigelow on…
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, J.
It must be conceded, both upon reason and authority, that where the name of one person is signed by another to a written promise, the person whose name is thus signed can be legally held as promisor only on one of three grounds. These are, that he either expressly authorized the act, or, that he subsequently ratified it, or, that he is estopped by his conduct to disavow it.
As one may do by another what he can do himself, the law on the first ground of liability above stated is very simple, and the fact in any given case easily established. It is not so easy, however, to determine what will…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gilman v. GilmanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1865
3Cited by1 opinion
- Norton v. HigbeeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889