Froug, Smulian & Co. v. Outcault Advertising Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; O. W. Hendricks, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This was a suit by appellee against appellants on a written contract, dated September 9, 1909, for certain advertising cuts sold and delivered to them.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; O. W. Hendricks, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This was a suit by appellee against appellants on a written contract, dated September 9, 1909, for certain advertising cuts sold and delivered to them. Appellee relied upon its written contract for the sale of said cuts, which was signed by appellants “per Gavin,” who was appellant’s advertisement writer, but who had no authority to execute the 'contract, according to the evidence offered on behalf of appellants, and they further say the contract was never ratified by them. The cause was tried…
1Opinion of the Court
The question of tender was not raised below.
Smith, J.,
(after .stating the facts). (1-2) The principal, of course, is not bound by the unauthorized act of his .agent, who acts without .the .apparent scope of his authority. But he may ratify his agent’s unauthorized act, and, when he does so, he becomes as completely bound as if he had conferred upon his agent the authority to do the act in question. This is an elementary principle of the law of agency and requires no citation of authority to sustain it. Ordinarily, the principal is not held to have ratified the acts of his agent, if he is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- MacLeod v. Fox West Coast Theatres Corp.California Supreme Court · 1937
- Dierks Lumber & Coal Co. v. CoffmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. v. DuvallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Kelley v. SparksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
- Lawson v. Road Improvement District No. 7Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1924