Fritschle v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. —Hon. J. Hugo Grimm, Judge. (1) Under the terms of the contract of employment, respondent was not entitled to recover under the evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. —Hon. J. Hugo Grimm, Judge. (1) Under the terms of the contract of employment, respondent was not entitled to recover under the evidence. The polar star for the construction of instruments is that the intention of the party executing the document shall not be gathered from a remote or one apparent pertinent provision thereof alone, but on the contrary is to be gleaned from all that appears within the four corners of the instrument. Gibson v. Bogy, 28 Mo. 478; Williamson v. Brown, 195 Mo. 313. (2) Respondent did not fulfill or perform his…
1Opinion of the Court
After a verdict of a jury plaintiff had judgment in the circuit court for the sum of $347.59 based upon a claim for a commission as an insurance agent under a contract of employment with the defendant. Being unsuccessful in obtaining a new trial, defendant appeals.
The defendant company had a branch office in the city of St. Louis. The plaintiff was its general agent in charge of its Casualty business. A Mr. Reach was its general agent in charge of its Fidelity and Surety business. By letter dated March 18, 1916, defendant wrote plaintiff as follows:
"Under the arrangement contemplated in St.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ballentine & Boone v. MercerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Tooker v. DuckworthMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Good v. ErkerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- McCormick v. ObanionMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Prince v. Eighth Street Baptist ChurchMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bassen v. MoncktonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1925
- Gunderson v. North American Life & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1956