Holt v. Baldwin
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to First District Court. I. The plaintiff’s first instruction was erroneous. It left the jury to determine a bare and naked question of law. It was the duty of the court to tell the jury what was necessary to constitute the ratification by the principal of the unauthorized acts of the agent, so as to bind and charge the principal. A mere promise, after the sale, by defendant, to pay for the horse was not sufficient to support an action thereon.
Read the full summary
Error to First District Court. I. The plaintiff’s first instruction was erroneous. It left the jury to determine a bare and naked question of law. It was the duty of the court to tell the jury what was necessary to constitute the ratification by the principal of the unauthorized acts of the agent, so as to bind and charge the principal. A mere promise, after the sale, by defendant, to pay for the horse was not sufficient to support an action thereon. A principal, to ratify the unauthorized acts of an agent in the purchase of property, must receive the property or get the benefit of the…
1Opinion of the CourtCurkibR, Judge
The plaintiff sues to recover the purchase money of a horse sold to the defendant’s minor son. The petition shows, for substance, that a minor son of the defendant was engaged in the military service of the State, with his father’s consent and approbation ; that a horse wras necessary for the use of the son in his employment; and that the son, under the authority of the father, purchased the horse in question, and took possession of him, and that his father, the defendant, subsequently ratified the transaction, and promised to pay the plaintiff the sum agreed upon as the purchase money of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brown v. DeloachSupreme Court of Georgia · 1859