Coffman v. Harrison

1. The practice act o£ 1849 did not change the rules of practice regulating proceedings upon appeals from justices of the peace. 2. A due bill signed thus : “A., agent for B.,” will bind A. if he had no authority to bind B.

•Jipjieal from, St. Francois Circuit Court. This was a suit commenced before a justice of the peace against A. W. Harrison, agent of the Mississippi Mining and Manufacturing Company, upon the following due bill or note: “ Due, Fiat River Mines, September 7, 1854, Daniel P. Coff-man, twenty-seven dollars and fifty-seven cents. [Signed] A. W. Harrison, agent for Miss. Mining & Man. Co., by A. B. McCreery, clerk.” Judgment having been rendered against defendant, an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court. In the Circuit Court, Harrison filed his affidavit denying the execution by himself of the instrument sued on. Evidence was introduced tending to show that Harrison authorized McCreery to execute said instrument; that the Miss. Mining & Man. Co. was a company located in the state of Wisconsin ; that defendant Harrison claimed to be the agent of the said company. No authority to act for said company was shown. The cause was tried by the court sitting as a jury. No declaration of the law applicable to the case and no instructions were asked. The court rendered judgment for plaintiff. cited Bryant v. Durkee, 9 Mo. 169; Jef-fries v. McLean’s Exec’r, 12 Mo. 538 ; Byars v. Doore’s Adm’r, 20 Mo. 284 ; Mott v. Hicks, 1 Cow. 518 ; Bockway v. Allen, 17 Wend. 40 ; Bay v. Cook, 2 Zabr. 843 ; Gillespie v. Wesson, 7 Porter, 455 ; Hite v. Kendall, 2 Pike, 328 ; 9 Alabama, 659.