Meyer, Bannerman & Co. v. Stone & Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Washington Circuit Court. Hon. J. M. Pittman, Circuit Judge. Barry was a special agent, authorized to solicit orders, by sample, for appellants. He was paid a commission on all orders taken. He did not handle the goods; had no control over them. The orders were taken in the name of the firm; the goods were shipped directly to the purchaser, and a bill sent, showing the amount of goods and indebtedness to the firm. Barry had no authority to collect. SO Amer.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Washington Circuit Court. Hon. J. M. Pittman, Circuit Judge. Barry was a special agent, authorized to solicit orders, by sample, for appellants. He was paid a commission on all orders taken. He did not handle the goods; had no control over them. The orders were taken in the name of the firm; the goods were shipped directly to the purchaser, and a bill sent, showing the amount of goods and indebtedness to the firm. Barry had no authority to collect. SO Amer. Hep., 795; 68 Mo., 298; SO Penn. St., 5IS; 82 N. J. Law, 2£9; 51 Mo., 89; 56 Mo., £3£; 3£ N. Y., £17; Dunn v. Wright, 51…
1Opinion of the Court
Cockuill, O. J.
The appellants are merchants in the city of St. Louis. Their salesmen visit merchants in this state and elsewhere, and solicit orders for' merchandise, and when successful forward the orders to their principals in St. Louis to be filled. The appellees who are merchants in the town of Fayetteville, in this state, purchased a bill of goods. of the appellants through W. T. Barry, one of their traveling salesmen, the order being taken in the usual way, and the goods shipped by the St. Louis merchants to 'the appellees with an itemized account showing the indebtedness to them. A few…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McKindly v. DunhamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Clark v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1878
- Butler v. DormanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Kornemann v. MonaghanMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- George D. Putnam & Co. v. French & MooreSupreme Court of Vermont · 1881
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States Bedding Co. v. AndesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Alexander v. Williams-Echols Dry Goods Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Hadley Milling Co. v. KelleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- American Sales Book Co. v. CowdreySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- G. H. Hammond Co. v. Joseph Mercantile Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.