Teckenbrock v. McLaughlin
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, George W. Lubke, Judge. The agency of the wife, both before and after her marriage to the plaintiff, was properly proved — that is, by evidence other than her own. Williams v. Williams, 67 Mo. 661. See Starkie on Evidence [Sharswood ’ s 9 Ed. 124], where he says : “Where the party employed was the actual agent, who transacted the business of the principal, he was competent on the score of necessity.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, George W. Lubke, Judge. The agency of the wife, both before and after her marriage to the plaintiff, was properly proved — that is, by evidence other than her own. Williams v. Williams, 67 Mo. 661. See Starkie on Evidence [Sharswood ’ s 9 Ed. 124], where he says : “Where the party employed was the actual agent, who transacted the business of the principal, he was competent on the score of necessity.” Anri he cites the cases of Adams r>. Davis (3 Esp. C. 48), and Mathews v. Hayden (2 Esp. C. 509). See, also, Bean v. Rear soil (12 Ala. 592), where the…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
The sole question which arises upon this record is, whether a married woman, who, prior 'to her marriage, was employed by one, who subsequently became her husband, to act as his agent in respect of a particular transaction, but who did not act as his agent generally, she being now his wife, is a competent witness, in his behalf, to prove the transaction in which she thus acted as his agent — the fact of her having so acted as his agent being proved by another, and competent, witness. The statute (Rev. Stat., sect. 4014) recites that “no mar-' ried woman shall be disqualified as a witness, in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Chesley ex rel. Self v. ChesleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Gayle v. BishopSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
- Bean v. PearsallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
- Governor v. GeeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1851
- Quade v. FisherSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
3Cited by1 opinion
- E. R. Darlington Lumber Co. v. Westlake Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911