Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

93 Mo. App. 121

Wilson v. Standard Operating Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 3, 1902

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1902-03-03

— Hon. J. D. Perkms Judge. Neither Patton, by virtue of his position as manager, nor Dodge by virtue of his position as vice-president of the company, were authorized tjo employ brokers to sell the mine which was the entire property of the corporation. Hyde v. Larkin, 35 Mo. App. 365; Winsor v. Bank, 18 Mo. App. 665; Barcus v. Railroad, 26 Mo. 102; State ex rel. v. Lockett, 54 Mo. App. 202; Hill v. Mining Co., 119 Mo. 9; State ex rel. v. Wray, 55 Mo. App. 646.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1906

2 state decisions

Relies on Haniford v. City of Kansas · Burdoin v. Town of Trenton · M. H. Pattison & Son v. Letton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Aeeirmed · Decided 1902-03-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ELLISON, J.

¶1This action was brought to recover from defendant a commission for the sale of certain mining interests and mining plant. The plaintiff recovered in the trial court.

¶2Defendant is a corporation and bases its claim for a reversal of the judgment on the ground that there was no authority in defendant’s agents or officers to employ plaintiff to-negotiate a sale of the property aforesaid. The plaintiff meets, this point on the ground that no such issue was tried, nor was such issue raised in the circuit court. If this be true we must refuse to consider it here. Sec. 864, R. S. 189-9; Pattison v. Letton, 56 Mo. App. 325, 336; Haniford v. City of Kansas, 103 Mo. 172; Burdoin v. Town of Trenton, 116 Mo. 358.

¶3The theory now advanced is not the one upon which the case was tried. Mantz v. Maguire, 52 Mo. App. 136; Querback v. Arnold, 55 Mo. App. 286; Witascheck v. Glass, 46 Mo. *123App. 209. The answer of defendant on which the case was tried was a general denial, and there was a demurrer to the evidence submitted in plaintiff’s behalf.- There was an answer filed by defendant and withdrawn just before the trial, in which, coupled with a general denial of the petition, there was other matter set up whereby the sale alleged by plaintiff was admitted. This was introduced in evidence by plaintiff. The defense, as disclosed by the record, including the instructions for defendant, was that whatever plaintiff did in making the sale was “in conjunction and conjointly with or through” one Andrews. And that afterwards “defendant paid to said Andrews, for negotiating and making said sale, a commission and compensation of one thousand dollars.” In such circumstances it is not allowable for defendant to come here with a complaint which was never broached to the trial court. The mere filing of a general demurrer to the evidence does not raise up issues which have been cut out by admissions. The whole record here shows affirmatively that the demurrer did not cover the point now made, and was not so intended. The judgment will be affirmed.

All concur.
/93/moapp/121 · .json · Public domain