Clark v. Smith
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Lawrence Gas Co. v. Hawkeye Oil Co. (Iowa 1917)
- Peter Cooper's Glue Factory v. Devoe & Raynolds Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1913)
- Good v. Arkin (Ill. App. Ct. 1909)
- Scarritt-Comstock Furniture Co. v. Hudspeth (Okla. 1907)
- Williams v. Anderson & Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1903)
- Smith v. Droubay (Utah 1899)
- Crawford v. Whittaker (W. Va. 1896)
- Clark v. Murphy (Mass. 1895)
- Sioux City Nursery & Seed Co. v. Magnus (Colo. App. 1891)
- Sioux City Nursery & Seed Co. v. Magnus (Colo. App. 1891)
- SIOUX CITY NURSERY & SEED CO. v. MAGNUS. (Colo. App. 1891)
- Thomas Kane & Co. v. Barstow (Kan. 1889)
- Meyer, Bannerman & Co. v. Stone & Co. (Ark. 1885)
- Crosby v. Hill (Ohio 1883)
- McKindly v. Dunham (Wis. 1882)
- Greenhood v. Keator (Ill. App. Ct. 1881)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The majority of the court are of the opinion that the proof in this record not only fails to show that Richards had authority to collect for Clark, but also think there is not evidence sufficient to support the proposition that Clark held Richards out to Smith as having such authority. While, perhaps, power to make contracts for the sale of goods upon a credit may be inferred from the letter of July 2, 1874, yet there is nothing in the letter from which authority to receive money in payment can properly be inferred. The verdict is not supported by the proofs, and the exception to the ruling of the court in refusing a new trial was well taken.
The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.