Moore v. Ziba Bennitt & Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; W. B. Sorrells, Judge; 1. Carter Murphy, who signed the contract, was not appellant’s agent nor was he authorized to make the agreement for her. There is no testimony that appellant authorized Carter to make this sale nor that she held him out as her agent. The writing was signed by Murphy alone, not as “agent,” and there is no testimony that appellant held Murphy out as her agent with her knowledge.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; W. B. Sorrells, Judge; 1. Carter Murphy, who signed the contract, was not appellant’s agent nor was he authorized to make the agreement for her. There is no testimony that appellant authorized Carter to make this sale nor that she held him out as her agent. The writing was signed by Murphy alone, not as “agent,” and there is no testimony that appellant held Murphy out as her agent with her knowledge. The agent only was 'bound, and not the principal. 2 C. J. 670, par. 321; lb. 682. The writing was not the contract of the principal, and she is not bound. 2…
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION.
McCulloch, C. J.
The conclusion reached by the majority that the contract for sale of the cotton discloses on its face the agency of Carter Murphy for appellant is, it seems to me, an erroneous construction of the contract. Of course, there is abundant testimony tending to show that it was intended by appellee and Murphy as a sale of the cotton by Murphy as agent for appellant. But, when we look alone to the face of the contract, it seems to me clear that it was not one for sale by the agent. On the contrary, its clear import is to show a sale by Murphy himself. The words…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cream City Glass Co. v. FriedlanderWisconsin Supreme Court · 1893
- Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. CampbellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919