Frank v. Curtis & Son
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Jaclcson Circuit Court. — Hon. J. HSloyer, Judge. (1) The court erred in admitting the evidence of John Ochsly, deputy United States marshal, to the effect that Curtis’ attorney sought to have Rice'arrested for selling liquor without a license, for the reason that such act was without the scope of said attorney’s employment, and was not known to, or subsequently ratified by, Curtis.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Jaclcson Circuit Court. — Hon. J. HSloyer, Judge. (1) The court erred in admitting the evidence of John Ochsly, deputy United States marshal, to the effect that Curtis’ attorney sought to have Rice'arrested for selling liquor without a license, for the reason that such act was without the scope of said attorney’s employment, and was not known to, or subsequently ratified by, Curtis. Ferguson v. Terry,1 B. Monr. 96; Foster v. Wiley, 27 Mich. 248; Boulard v. Calhoim, 13 La. Ann. 445; Hagan v. Prov. SR. I. Co., 3 R. I. 88. The first instruction given for plaintiff took from the…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
At and before the dates hereinafter named plaintiff Frank was conducting a wholesale liquor business in Cincinnati. He had a branch house at Kansas City operated under the name of Cincinnati Liquor Co., which was managed by Max Rice. One Costello had a saloon on West Ninth street, Kansas City, and on November 3, 1891, was indebted to the plaintiff’s branch house, as also to one Nicol, to Mayes, *353to defendant Curtis and others. Mayes had a chattel mortgage on the saloon property.
On said November 3, Rice went to Costello’s saloon and found it in the possession of the constable who had levied on…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Shelley v. BootheSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Milburn v. Beach & EddySupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
3Cited by2 opinions
- Handlan-Buck Manufacturing Co. v. Wendelkin Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Klie v. WellmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915