Hook v. Stone

34 Mo. 329
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJanuary 15, 1864
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 34 Mo. 329 (Hook v. Stone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hook v. Stone, 34 Mo. 329 (Mo. 1864).

Opinion

Bates, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Dyer and Robertson were partners in business, as merchants, at Eulton, Missouri. Early in the year 1862, Dyer went to the State of California and acquired a domicil there.

Before going, he executed a power of attorney to Robertson, in which he authorized him to manage his individual business and also to superintend their joint interest as co-partners, and to make such purchases as is usual to keep the stock of merchandise complete, and to renew notes in bank.

In July, 1862, the co-partnership being insolvent, and Dyer absent in California, Robertson made to Stone, as a trustee, a general assignment of the goods and other property of the firm, for the benefit of the creditors of the firm.

Hook, a creditor of the firm, caused some of the assigned [330]*330goods to be seized for the satisfaction of his debt, and the only question presented for our consideration is as to the validity of the assignment.

The court below held the assignment to be valid. We think that court erred.

I. Robertson could not make the assignment by virtue of his authority as partner. This is settled by previous decisions of this court. (Hughes v. Elison, 5 Mo. 463; Drake v. Rogers & Shrewsburg, 6 Mo. 317.)

II. The power of attorney gave Robertson no power to make the assignment. There are no words in it which either expressly or by remote implication give such a power, and indeed the respondent does not claim that it does grant such power.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Judges Bay and Dryden concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Callahan v. Heinz
49 N.E. 1073 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1898)
Parker v. Brown
85 F. 595 (Eighth Circuit, 1898)
Blank & Brother Candy Co. v. Walker
46 Mo. App. 482 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
Trumbull v. Union Trust Co.
33 Ill. App. 319 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1889)
Steinhart v. Fyhrie
5 Mont. 463 (Montana Supreme Court, 1885)
Bowen v. Chase
3 F. Cas. 1046 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1870)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 Mo. 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hook-v-stone-mo-1864.