Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)

Citation: Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)
Parent Document: Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1871-10-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8046745/grumley-v-webb/ ↗

Full Text

1,837 chars

Grumley denies that he was in Krum’s office as stated. He denies, too, that Broadhead had any authority to dismiss the second suit; and denies further, and over and over again, and *582in forms the most positive, that prior to the day of settlement Broadhead was- authorized to settle the first suit- for less than $11,522.54, that being the full face of the judgment. Yet it is an undisputed fact in the case that prior to that date, Broadhead had been negotiating for months flor a compromise settlement of the judgment; that he offered to discount from its face thousands of dollars, and that he finally'acquiesced in a settlement at considerably less than half the face of the judgment; and further, that Grumley instantly ratified- his acts in that behalf and gave a discharge in full of all claims and demands. According to Grumley’s own statements, Broadhead acted throughout the negotiations as a mere volunteer and intermeddler', and without the slightest shadow of authority. But it is manifest from the case — and counsel do not attempt to controvert the fact — that Broadhead’s negotiations in respect to the judgment were duly authorized.' Grumley’s denials on that subject must therefore go for nothing. If these are set aside as wholly unreliable, what becomes of his denials of Broadhead’s authority to dismiss the second suit ? His rash swearing in regard to the former, shakes the credit of his testimony in regard to the latter. He no more denies authority in the one case than in the other.- -His unsupported statements cannot be accepted as sufficient to countervail the testimony of both Webb and Judge, Krum, the latter being a pecuniarily disinterested witness. It is alike more reasonable and charitable to suppose forgetfulness on the part of Grumley rather than invention on the part of the opposing witnesses.

Other Sections in This Document (174)

Full Text