Wales-Riggs Plantations v. Dye
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Cross Circuit Court; S. S. Simpson, Special Judge; Testimony as to one’s acts is not admissible to establish his agency, unless such acts are shown to have been authorized or accepted by the person sought to be charged as principal. 26 S. W. 383; 72 Ark. 64; 40 S. W. 506; 19 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cross Circuit Court; S. S. Simpson, Special Judge; Testimony as to one’s acts is not admissible to establish his agency, unless such acts are shown to have been authorized or accepted by the person sought to be charged as principal. 26 S. W. 383; 72 Ark. 64; 40 S. W. 506; 19 Am. St. Rep. 795; 10 Enc. of Ev. 22. Since Mrs. Cross did not assume to be acting for appellant in buying the goods, appellee could not recover, even if he could show that appellant had confirmed the sale, unless he could show a consideration to support such confirmation. 55 Ark. 427 ; 66 Ark. 15. Agency,…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
Appellant commenced this suit in justice’s court against appellee to recover upon two promissory notes. The appellee admitted liability on the notes, but filed a set-off, in which he claimed that appellant was due him an amount over and above that due by him upon the notes for goods and merchandise sold by him to Mrs. C. K. Cross for appellant. Appellee recovered judgment against appellant in the justice’s court on his set-off, and the case was appealed to the circuit court. There appellee again recovered judgment, and the case is here on appeal. The facts are as follows:
C. W. Riggs…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway v. BennettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1890
3Cited by3 opinions
- Daly v. Arkadelphia Milling Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Moore v. Ziba Bennitt & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Wales-Riggs Plantations v. GroomsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918