Robbins v. Horn
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pike Circuit Court; James 8. Steel, Judge; It was error to direct a verdict. The court did so' ' on the theory that A. E. Alford was a special agent of Horn Brothers and that a principal is not liable for the acts of a special agent.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pike Circuit Court; James 8. Steel, Judge; It was error to direct a verdict. The court did so' ' on the theory that A. E. Alford was a special agent of Horn Brothers and that a principal is not liable for the acts of a special agent. The distinction between a special agent and a general agent is well settled. 55 Ark. 629; 25 Id. 261. Alford was the agent of Horn Brothers to sell the specific cotton he sold to appellant and he was within the rule binding a principal by the acts of a special agent. 81 Ark. 202; 104 Icl. 150. The principal is liable for the acts of the ag’ent within…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
This action was instituted by the appellant against the appellees and one T. E. Alford. The appellant alleged that he purchased from T. E. Alford 214 bales of cotton; that at the time he purchased the cotton Alford furnished him with samples on which he relied in making the purchase; that T. E. Alford was the agent of Horn Bros., in the sale of 76 bales of the cotton, which they refused to deliver to the appellant; that he purchased the cotton for resale and sold the same at 32% cents a pound; that Alford and Horn Bros, refused to deliver to appellant, or his vendee, the cotton, which…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Walnut Ridge Mercantile Co. v. CohnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Taylor v. GodboldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Hodges v. NallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
3Cited by1 opinion
- Betnar v. RoseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976