TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hull v. Jones

Hull v. Jones, 69 Mo. 587 (1879)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 15, 1879
Judges
Napton
Citations
69 Mo. 587
Headnotes
Proof of Agency. It does not require direct evidence to establish an agency. It may be inferred from circumstances.
Summary
Appeal from Cole Circuit Court. — Hon. G. "W". Miller, 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 — Napton

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

Napton, J.

The petition in this ease contained two counts, but as the ease was finally tried on the second count,'it is unnecessary to notice the first. The second count charges a sale and delivery to defendants of 222 cords of wood, for which defendants agreed to pay the customary price — that the customary price was $8.75 per cord, and that the wood was reasonably .worth that; that the money was not paid, and, therefore, asks for judgment for $832.50, with interest. The answer was a simple denial of the petition: The plaintiff had a verdict and judgment. It appeared that the wood was furnished to an agent of the Pacific Railroad Company, whose business it was to measure, and on his certificate, the defendants, who seem to have been contractors to furnish the railroad company, was to pay for the wood. The only question raised is, whether the evidence to show the agency of the road master for the defendants was competent. The court instructed the jury that the authority of Ennis (the road master) to act as agent for defendants need not be established by direct evidence showing his appointment, but itis sufficient,if from all the evidence and circumstances in evidence he was shown to be the agent of defendants for that purpose. The evidence is not fully preserved. We think the instruction was right, and that the evidence, so far as preserved, *588 justified the verdict, The judgment will be affirmed.

All concur.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1889: 21893: 11894: 11902: 21905: 21908: 118892026peak 1889 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Winslow Bros. v. McCully Stone Mason Co.69 S.W. 304 (Mo. 1902)
  2. St. Louis Gunning Advertising Co. v. Wanamaker & Brown90 S.W. 737 (Mo. Ct. App. 1905)
  3. Mosby v. McKee, Zook & Whiteford Commission Co.91 Mo. App. 500 (1902)
  4. Mitchum v. Dunlap98 Mo. 418 (1889)
  5. Reynolds v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad90 S.W. 100 (Mo. Ct. App. 1905)
  6. Hoppe v. Saylor53 Mo. App. 4 (1893)

Most recent

  1. Baker v. Thompson114 S.W. 497 (Mo. 1908)
  2. St. Louis Gunning Advertising Co. v. Wanamaker & Brown90 S.W. 737 (Mo. Ct. App. 1905)
  3. Reynolds v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad90 S.W. 100 (Mo. Ct. App. 1905)
  4. Winslow Bros. v. McCully Stone Mason Co.69 S.W. 304 (Mo. 1902)
  5. Mosby v. McKee, Zook & Whiteford Commission Co.91 Mo. App. 500 (1902)
  6. Mayer v. Old57 Mo. App. 639 (1894)

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