Phillips v. Geiser Manufacturing Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Livingston Circuit Court. — Hon. Frank H. Trimble, Judge. (1) Plaintiffs alleging contracts with corporations as the basis of recovery in an action should, when the contract is an issue by a positive denial, not only prove that it was made with some agent, being its duty or ratified by corporation having knowledge or authorized by competent evidence. Griffin v. Railway, 22 M'o. App. 622. (2) A special agent’s authority must be proved. Beusberg v. Harris, 46 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Livingston Circuit Court. — Hon. Frank H. Trimble, Judge. (1) Plaintiffs alleging contracts with corporations as the basis of recovery in an action should, when the contract is an issue by a positive denial, not only prove that it was made with some agent, being its duty or ratified by corporation having knowledge or authorized by competent evidence. Griffin v. Railway, 22 M'o. App. 622. (2) A special agent’s authority must be proved. Beusberg v. Harris, 46 Mo. App. 406; Alt v. Grosclose, 61 Mo. App. 412. (3) Agent’s declaration and conversation after the alleged contract is…
1Opinion of the CourtBroaddus, P. J.
This is a suit wherein plaintiff claims commission as the agent of the defendant for the sale of certain goods. The petition contains six counts, three of which declare on contract and the others on quantum meruit. In other words the plaintiff has set out his three different causes of action in two different forms.
The defendant is a manufacturing corporation with its principal place of business at Waynesborough, Pennsylvania, having separate branch offices and places of business at different points among which is Kansas City, Missouri. The defendant employs agents in different localities to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Williams v. Chicago, Santa Fe & California Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Moore v. H. Gaus & Sons Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Nelson v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Southern Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1896
- Holmes v. Board of TradeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Reynolds v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Noren v. American School of OsteopathyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1928
- Bucknam v. BucknamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1941
- Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Lingle Refrigeration Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1961
- Bennett v. PotashnickMissouri Court of Appeals · 1924
- Meux v. HallerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.