TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Roberts v. Burks

ROBERTS, &c. v. BURKS

Roberts v. Burks, 16 Ky. 411 (1821)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 18, 1821
Judges
Mills
Citations
16 Ky. 4111821 Ky. LEXIS 47
Headnotes
The confessions of agents are not evidence against their employers, except where such confessions are part of the res gestæ.
Summary
From the Washington Circuit Court, the Hon. William L. Kelly sole Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Mills

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Opinion of the Court, by Judge Mills.

THIS is an action of trover and conversion against our defendants. In the court below, on the issue of not guilty, the jury found a verdict against all of the defendants. Two of them appear to be owners of a warehouse, and the other two did business for them as warehouse-keepers or agents. The action is brought for the trover and conversion of whiskey stored by the plaintiffs in the warehouse. The only testimony adduced to charge the owners of the warehouse, was the acknowledgments of the other defendants that the quantity of whiskey was in the warehouse, and that they had taken it out and shipped it aboard of a boat belonging to the owners of the warehouse, and at their order, to make up a deficiency in the load. The verdict being against all, a new trial was moved for, on the ground that the verdict ought not to have been thus found, there being no competent evidence against two.

The principle, that the declarations or confessions of an agent, except they be made at the time, and compose a part of acts done by him for his principal, within the scope of his authority, cannot be given in evidence to charge the principal, is too well settled to need authority to support it. The confessions of the agents in this case do not appear to have been made at the time of doing the acts, nor does it appear that they were executing any authority given them, except by their own declarations. The evidence, therefore, was incompetent, as to the keepers of the warehouse, and insufficient to warrant the verdict against them. Of course, the court erred in refusing to grant anew trial.

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1909: 119092026peak 1909 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Southern Express Co. v. Fox & Logan115 S.W. 184 (Ky. Ct. App. 1909)

Most recent

  1. Southern Express Co. v. Fox & Logan115 S.W. 184 (Ky. Ct. App. 1909)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list