Blank & Brother Candy Co. v. Walker
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Randolph Circuit Court. — Hon. John A. Hookaday, Judge. (1) The court erred in permitting defendants, J. P. Walker and J. H. Brownfield, to testify to parol authority said to be given by defendant Walker to defendant Brownfield to make a general assignment of all the firm assets for the benefit of creditors, as such authority should have been given by proper instrument under seal and duly acknowledged.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Randolph Circuit Court. — Hon. John A. Hookaday, Judge. (1) The court erred in permitting defendants, J. P. Walker and J. H. Brownfield, to testify to parol authority said to be given by defendant Walker to defendant Brownfield to make a general assignment of all the firm assets for the benefit of creditors, as such authority should have been given by proper instrument under seal and duly acknowledged. R. S. 1889, sec. 424. (2) The court erred in permitting defendant, J. H. Brownfield, to testify, over plaintiff’s objection, to what his partner, J. P. Walker, said to him…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
This is a contest over the title of a grocery stock at Moberly. It arises out of the following state of facts : Defendants Walker & Brownfield had two grocery stores, one at Moberly, and one at Leesburg, seventeen miles from Moberly. Walker resided, and-managed the business, at Leesburg, while Brownfield lived, and had charge of the store, at Moberly. Before the occurrences here related, however, the store at Leesburg was closed out by the firm. On January 3, 1890, Brownfield, claiming to act for and in behalf of his firm executed and acknowledged, in the firm-name, a deed of assignment to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Welles v. . MarchNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Shattuck v. ChandlerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1889
- Hughes v. EllisonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1838
- Hook v. StoneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864
- Baldwin v. TynesNew York Supreme Court · 1865
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rock Island Plow Co. v. Lang & GrayMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893