Bank of Commerce v. Hoeber
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from SI. Louis Coiort of Appeals. (1) The court below erred in assuming that the defendant was responsible for the unknown and unauthorized promise made by Dickson to Levy & Brother. Laurence t>. Clark, 36 N. Y. 128; Carroll v. Shields, 4 E. D. Smith, 466 ; Wyllie t>. Poller, 32 L. J. Oh. 782 Jones v. Smith, 12 L. J. Oh. 382 ; Nat. Ins.
Read the full summary
Appeal from SI. Louis Coiort of Appeals. (1) The court below erred in assuming that the defendant was responsible for the unknown and unauthorized promise made by Dickson to Levy & Brother. Laurence t>. Clark, 36 N. Y. 128; Carroll v. Shields, 4 E. D. Smith, 466 ; Wyllie t>. Poller, 32 L. J. Oh. 782 Jones v. Smith, 12 L. J. Oh. 382 ; Nat. Ins. Co. v. Minch, 53 N. Y. 144 ; Barnes v. Trenton, etc., 27 N. J. Eq_. 33. (2) The principal will not be affected by notice to the agent of any facts outside of the scope of his agency. Roach V. Kerr, 18 Kans. 529 ; Adams Express Co. v. Trego, 35 Md. 47;…
1Opinion of the Court
Rat, J,-
In the trial court the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and there was judgment accordingly; from which the defendant appealed to the St. Louis coui’t of appeals, where the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed, and the defendant again appealed to this court. The case is reported in 11 Missouri Appeal Reports, 475. The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of that court. Upon examination of that opinion, the reasoning and conclusions of that court appear to be well sustained by the authorities cited. The briefs of counsel in this court furnish no sufficient…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Davenport v. BurkeIdaho Supreme Court · 1917
- Priddy v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Dicks v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- Powers Dry-Goods Co. v. HarlinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
- O'Brien v. GreenebaumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.