Lehman v. Nolting
Missouri Court of Appeals
_Appeal from the Lafayette Circuit Court. — Hon. Richabd Field, Judge. (1) If the agent’s authority is not under seal and •an instrument executed by him under seal is therefore void as a sealed instrument, yet, if the seal is unnecessary, it will be disregarded and the writing held to be valid as a simple contract, or a contract not under seal.
Read the full summary
_Appeal from the Lafayette Circuit Court. — Hon. Richabd Field, Judge. (1) If the agent’s authority is not under seal and •an instrument executed by him under seal is therefore void as a sealed instrument, yet, if the seal is unnecessary, it will be disregarded and the writing held to be valid as a simple contract, or a contract not under seal. Shtietse et al. v. Bailey et al., 40 Mo. 69, on page 75; JEinstein v. Holt, 52 Mo. 340. The lease in question is good as an unsealed contract; it need ■only be in writing; but the authority of the agent may be by parol. 1 Pars. Cont. [7Ed.], 47*. (2)…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
— The defendant is sued as guarantor of the payment of rent agreed upon in a lease of real estate for a term of three years. Judgment was given for defendant in the trial court.
The lease was by writing under seal and was executed for the lessor, by an agent. The agent had no written authority. The lease being for a term of more than one year and the agent who executed it not having authority in writing,,the estate created was an estate at will only, by force of section 5182, of the statutes of 1889. Hoover v. Pacific Oil Co., 41 Mo. App. 317. By the lessee’s entry and payment of monthly rent,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Shuetze v. BaileySupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Hoover, Rhodes & Co. v. Pacific Oil Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1890
3Cited by4 opinions
- Tate v. GainesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Bristow v. CarrigerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Rogers v. HillCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory · 1901
- Shea v. SeeligMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901