Schepflin v. Dessar
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Daniel Dillon, Judge. The acceptance of the note of J. T. Hooker & Son. under the circumstances shown in the record, for the amount of the account sued on, does not conclude the appellant from holding the respondents liable as for goods sold and delivered, the note not having been paid, and respondents having received the goods with notice at the time of their purchase for their account.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Daniel Dillon, Judge. The acceptance of the note of J. T. Hooker & Son. under the circumstances shown in the record, for the amount of the account sued on, does not conclude the appellant from holding the respondents liable as for goods sold and delivered, the note not having been paid, and respondents having received the goods with notice at the time of their purchase for their account. Pentz v. Stanton, 10 Wend. 278 ; 5 Taunt. 356 ; French v. Price, 24 Pick. 13. If the-agent’s authority is not clear, the purchase was after-wards ratified by…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
This is an action on an account for goods sold and delivered. The court instructed the jury that, under the-pleadings and evidence, the plaintiffs could not recover. The question for decision, therefore, is Avhether, under the pleadings, there was evidence sufficient to take the case to the jury. We are of opinion that there was not.
The substantial facts were, that the plaintiffs were *572manufacturers of clothing at Plainfield, New Jersey; that the defendants were wholesale dealers in clothing at New York; that J. T. Hooker & Son were the general agents for the sale of clothing for the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- McMurray v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
- Clealand v. WalkerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
- Cheever v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Henry Ames Packing & Provision Co. v. TuckerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879
- Brown v. Bankers & Brokers' Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1869
3Cited by10 opinions
- Sessions v. BlockMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Carman v. HarrahMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Jackson v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- McCormack Harvesting Machine Co. v. BlairMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Edwin Clapp & Son, Inc. v. KnorrSupreme Court of Kansas · 1920
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.