49 Mo. 380 | Mo. | 1872
delivered the opinion of the court.
The only point saved in the record and presented for our determination is the ruling of the court on the admissibility of the plaintiff’s evidence. The action was founded on a bill of exchange purporting to be drawn in the name of the defendant by its general agent, in favor of one Otterman, in payment of a loss which he had sustained by fire on a building which was insured by defendant. The bill was assigned and transferred to the plaintiff.
The answer denied the authority of the agent to draw the bill and make it binding on the company. For the purpose of showing authority, plaintiff gave evidence proving that the general agent had drawn similar bills in like cases, and that the said bills were paid by the company. This evidence was objected to, but the objection was overruled, and it was admitted by the court.
Defendant introduced in evidence the by-laws of the company, the fifth section of which provides that the general agent shall have power to appoint or remove local agents, give them general instructions and directions, render them such assistance as may be necessary to secure business, and also have the general supervision of the agency departments. Power is moreover given him, under the direction of the executive committee, to compromise and settle claims arising from loss and damage.
The trial was before a court without a jury, and judgment was for the plaintiff. If the evidence was admissible, the verdict can not be disturbed.
The general principles governing such cases was adjudged by this court in Stothard v. Aull, 7 Mo. 318, where an agent purchased certain articles for his principal and gave a note in the principal’s name therefor. He had also given two other notes in the principal’s name, which had been discharged. No special authority had been given him to execute the notes. Upon these facts it was held that an authority to purchase articles on credit would imply a power to acknowledge an indebtedness in the name of the person for whom-they were bought; that a recognition by the principal of the agency in this particular instance, or in similar instances, was evidence of the authority of the agent; as where one signed policies in the name of another, who, when a
I think the evidence was clearly admissible, and the judgment must therefore be affirmed.