Smith v. James
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Crawford Circuit Court. John S. Little, Judge. Smith & Co. sued James in replevin for three wagons. Defendant denied title in plaintiffs. The cause was submitted to the court sitting as a jury.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Crawford Circuit Court. John S. Little, Judge. Smith & Co. sued James in replevin for three wagons. Defendant denied title in plaintiffs. The cause was submitted to the court sitting as a jury. The court found: “That London Bros, were the agents of T. & H. Smith & Co. for the sale of wagons; that their agency was as set out in the written contract introduced in evidence; that the wagons were the absolute property of Smith & Co. until sold; that London Bros, were largely indebted to J. D. James; that they were on the eve of failure, and two days before their failure turned over…
1Per curiam
An agent, with power to sell and receive money in payment for his principal, has not the apparent authority to accept a cancellation of his own debt due to a vendee who knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence could know, that his debtor is acting as agent; because he knows that the benefit of the sale will inure to the agent only — a result inconsistent with the agency. Arnett v. Glenn, 52 Ark., 253; Story on Agency, sec. 77; Belton Company v. Belton Manufacturing Co., 64 Tex., 337; Williams v. Johnston, 92 N. C., 532.
The court found only that James did not know the terms of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Williams v. . JohnstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
- Belton Compress Co. v. Belton Brick Mfg. Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by7 opinions
- Grooms v. Neff Harness Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Trippett v. Nash McLarty Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1925
- Briggs v. CollinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Bank of Hoxie v. Hadley Milling Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Fillaus v. GreenfieldSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.