Webster v. Wray
| Decision Date | 07 July 1885 |
| Citation | 17 Neb. 579,24 N.W. 207 |
| Parties | WEBSTER v. WRAY. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error from Hitchcock county.
Marquette, Deweese & Hall, for plaintiff.
J. Byron Jennings, for defendant.
This is an action to recover against E. D. Webster upon certain contracts for the payment of money made by his son Thomas B. Webster. There are four of these contracts, which are set out in the petition, together with an allegation after each one of them, in substance, that Thomas B. Webster had full authority to contract said debt, and that it was contracted for the benefit of E. D. Webster. The answer is a general denial. The jury in the court below returned a verdict in favor of Wray, and against E. D. and Thomas Webster, for $254.02, upon which judgment was rendered. The ground upon which a recovery is sought against E. D. Webster, is that he had authorized Thomas B. Webster, his son, to contract debts and borrow money in his own name for his father, in connection with the business in which they were engaged. The petition is very long and somewhat diffusive, and on reading it the first time the writer was inclined to doubt the views of the plaintiff in error, that it failed to state a cause of action against E. D. Webster. A more careful reading, however, shows its purpose, and, aided by the liberal rules of construction of the Code, it is sufficient to sustain a verdict.
The testimony tends to show that in the year 1876, E. D. Webster purchased a herd of cattle and placed them on his ranch on the Stinking Water. One witness stated: “It was called Webster's ranch--the Quarter Circle W. ranch.” The ranch and herd were in the care of Thomas B., the son, and the herd was registered in his name, and seems to have been so registered when the action was tried. The son was to have a fifth interest in the profits of the herd; the father, apparently, to pay all expenses. The son bought and sold stock with the father's knowledge and without objection, contracted debts which the father paid without complaint, and generally did all things necessary in the management and control of the herd.
In the spring of 1881 it is claimed that the authority of the son was revoked, but the proof fails to show that any notice of this fact was given, either generally or specially; the only testimony upon that point being that of E. D. Webster, who testifies that “in April, 1881, I sent White out here to look up matters and see what debts Tom owed, and what...
To continue reading
Request your trial