Legal Opinion

Sessions v. Block

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 15, 1890PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — How. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) An agent and his undisclosed principal are each severally and equally liable.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — How. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) An agent and his undisclosed principal are each severally and equally liable. (2) Before a party can be held to have made an election, he must know all the facts, and with freedom of choice elect to charge the agent or principal, or by his acts and conduct lead the principal to think he is not looked to for payment, and, acting under such belief, change the • status of his accounts with the agent. (3 ) A judgment against an agent without satisfaction is no bar to an action against the principal. (4) The…

1Opinion of the Court

Thompson, J.,

delivered tne opinion of the court.

The court sustained a demurrer to the plaintiff’s second amended petition, and he appeals to this court. The essential facts are that the plaintiff did work for the agent of an undisclosed principal; that, after discovering the principal, the plaintiff brought an action against both the agent and the principal; that, at the trial of this action, the court required him to elect whether he would proceed against the agent or the principal, and he thereupon elected to proceed against the agent; that a judgment was thereupon rendered in his favor…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Schepflin v. DessarMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
  2. Henry Ames Packing & Provision Co. v. TuckerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879
  3. Middleton v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Klinger v. Modesto Fruit Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1930
  2. Phillips v. RookerTennessee Supreme Court · 1915
  3. McDevitt v. Chas. Corriea & Bros.California Court of Appeal · 1924
  4. Rounsaville v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  5. Hohauser v. SchorDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1958

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API