Gregg v. Robbins
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff states in his petition in substance that the defendant owes him two hundred and eighty dollars with interest from October 8, 1856, for services rendered the defendant by the plaintiff as pilot on defendant’s boat; that on the 3d day of September, 1856, “James F. Smith, the master of defendant’s boat, being duly authorized in that behalf, accounted with the plaintiff, and the sum then found to be due to the plaintiff for…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff states in his petition in substance that the defendant owes him two hundred and eighty dollars with interest from October 8, 1856, for services rendered the defendant by the plaintiff as pilot on defendant’s boat; that on the 3d day of September, 1856, “James F. Smith, the master of defendant’s boat, being duly authorized in that behalf, accounted with the plaintiff, and the sum then found to be due to the plaintiff for his services rendered on the defendant’s boat was two hundred and eighty dollars, for which sum the said Smith, on…
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, Judge
It is not material to decide whether the action is upon a promissory note or on an account for services rendered ; for if the petition is on the note, then there is no proof that the master of the boat had authority to bind the owner in that manner, and authority for that purpose would not be implied from the relation that subsisted between the master and the owner. If the action is on account of services actually rendered, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover on his petition, as the proof showed he had been fully paid for all the services he performed. The evidence tended to show a…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Carr v. BurkeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862