Schlesinger v. Texas & St. Louis Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Anoveals. (1) The contract shown in evidence was not a 'bought and sold note. Wharton on Agency, sec. 719. Thorne was not the agent of appellant for any purpose,- and the contract offered in evidence and all the facts in the record show that he was acting for respondent in making and delivering the said contract. (2) The uncontradicted testimony shows that Thorne sold the rails in controversy to defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Anoveals. (1) The contract shown in evidence was not a 'bought and sold note. Wharton on Agency, sec. 719. Thorne was not the agent of appellant for any purpose,- and the contract offered in evidence and all the facts in the record show that he was acting for respondent in making and delivering the said contract. (2) The uncontradicted testimony shows that Thorne sold the rails in controversy to defendant. Thorne submitted a bid in his own name for four thousand tons of rails, and this bid was accepted by defendant, and up to the time of furnishing the letter of…
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.
The plaintiffs are engaged in the iron, and steel business at New York, Boston and London, under the firm name of Naylor & Company. This suit was brought to recover insurance paid by them for defendant on a cargo of iron from Antwerp to Galveston. The defendant admits the liability for the insurance, but pleads a counter-claim for damages for an alleged failure on the part of plaintiffs to punch the irons in accordance with directions furnished Thorne, who, the. defendant says, was the agent of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs reply that Thorne was the agent of defendant, and that they punched the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Brooke & Co. v. Cunningham Bros.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1916
- Lysle Milling Co. v. Whitfield Grocery Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
- Independent Fruit Co. v. Platt Produce Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1923