Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 01 December 1919
• Docket Number: 18
• Citation: 216 S.W. 20,141 Ark. 25
• Parties: ARKADELPHIA MILLING COMPANY v. CAMPBELL
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

216 S.W. 20

141 Ark. 25

ARKADELPHIA MILLING COMPANY v. CAMPBELL

No. 18

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 1, 1919

Appeal from Clark Circuit Court; Geo. R. Haynie, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

McMillan & McMillan, for appellant.

1. It was prejudicial error to refuse instruction No. 4 for plaintiff. The evidence shows that W. S. Campbell was in absolute control of the work of construction and was to get all the profit, but that A. O. Campbell was the contractor and responsible for the obligations. An agent's contract for his principal is binding from the time it is made, if the principal clothed the agent with apparent authority and a third person contracts with the agent for the principal on the faith of the apparent authority. 96 Ark. 456; 87 Id. 377; 93 Id. 521.

2. It was also error to refuse No. 2 for plaintiff. W. L. Campbell was the agent of defendant and not a volunteer, and if his contract to erect the building in payment of material was in excess of his authority, his principal, having notice and accepting the material, was bound by the contract as a ratification. 96 Ark. 505; 87 Id. 377.

3. It was error to refuse the 3rd for plaintiff. A principal can not ratify a contract made for him by an agent without also ratifying and becoming bound by the terms and conditions upon which it is made, although unauthorized. 114 Ark. 9; 87 Id. 377.

4. It was error to give No. 6 for defendant. It invades the province of the jury and directs them as to the weight to be given the testimony. 58 Ark. 108.

5. There was error in admitting evidence as to what E. C. Nowlin did, as there is no evidence that Nowlin had anything to do with the settlement of this difference with A. O. Campbell or that he was talking to Campbell on behalf of plaintiff; no evidence that he was acting for plaintiff in making these statements. 78 Ark. 381; 52 Id. 78, 168.

6. The trial court invaded the province of the jury in its oral charge and remarks. 58 Ark. 282; 46 Mich. 623; 10 N.W. 14; 29 N.E. 909; 42 Ind. 420; 12 Id. 568; 14 S.W. 538.

Callaway & Huie and Cockrill & Armistead, for appellee.

There is no error in the instructions given or refused and the evidence supports the verdict. There is no proof of damage that would support a verdict against W. S. Campbell. A. O had no interest in the contract. The verdict settles all questions of fact and there was no error of law committed.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

This is an action instituted by appellant against appellee to recover damages on account of alleged faulty construction of a warehouse for appellant. It is alleged in the complaint that appellee, A. O. Campbell, acting through his agent, W L. Campbell, entered into a written contract with appellant for the construction of the warehouse and undertook to perform the contract, but that some of the work was so defective that it had to be done over again at a cost to appellant of $ 750, the amount sued for.

The written contract is exhibited with the complaint, and shows on its face that it was executed, not by A. O. Campbell, but by W. L. Campbell. The body of the contract recites that it is the undertaking of W. L. Campbell, who subscribed his own name to it. It is, however, alleged in the complaint that, although the contract was executed by W. L. Campbell in his own name, he was acting as the authorized agent of A. O. Campbell, the appellee. The answer of appellee contains denials of all the allegations of the complaint. There was a trial of the issues before a jury which resulted in a verdict in favor of appellee.

The building in question was constructed in the year 1914. Appellee resided in Oklahoma City, but was engaged in taking contracts for constructing buildings, and entered into a contract to construct certain additional buildings for Henderson-Brown College at Arkadelphia. W. L. Campbell was sent to Arkadelphia as appellee's agent to superintend the construction of those buildings with authority to purchase material, employ labor and do everything to further the construction of the buildings. Appellant was engaged in the manufacturing business in Arkadelphia, and through its Little Rock agent, Mr. Nowlin, sought a contract for furnishing some of the mill work for the Henderson-Brown College buildings. The bill for that material amounted to the sum of $ 5,200. Appellant planned the construction of a warehouse, and procured estimates of the cost, one from W. L. Campbell, who signed the letter or memoranda submitting a bid in the name of A. O. Campbell, by him as agent. When this matter was submitted to A. O. Campbell he declined to have anything to do with the construction of the warehouse, and W. L. Campbell thereupon proceeded to enter into a contract with appellant in his own name for the construction of the warehouse for the price of $ 5,200, the same as the amount of the bill for material to be furnished by appellant for construction of the Henderson-Brown College buildings. The contract between appellant and W. L. Campbell contained the following clause:

"Said first party is to charge second party on account of all mill work now being furnished by said second party to first party on the administration building and girls' dormitory for Henderson-Brown College, at Arkadelphia, should there be a balance due either party after the completion of this contract same shall be paid in cash to the other party."

Appellee was not a party to this contract so far as it appears on the face of it, but it is conceded that he was advised of the existence of the contract between W. L. Campbell and appellant, and that he paid to W. L. Campbell the price of the material furnished by appellant, with the knowledge that W. L. Campbell was paying for the material under his contract for constructing the warehouse. According to the undisputed evidence, W. L. Campbell had not, prior to his being sent to Arkadelphia to superintend the construction of the Henderson-Brown College buildings, acted as the agent of A O. Campbell in any way for the past twenty years, and that he has not, subsequent to that transaction, acted for A. O. Campbell in any way. In constructing the warehouse for appellant W. L. Campbell used some of the construction machinery owned by A. O. Campbell and used in the construction of the Henderson-Brown College buildings, and also employed the same labor and the same bookkeeper and timekeeper. Appellee and W. L. Campbell each testified that the contract was that of W. L. Campbell alone, and that he was not acting as the agent of appellee, and that appellee was not interested in that contract. Appellant's manager testified that he thought when he entered into the contract that W. L. Campbell was the man who had the contract to construct the Henderson-Brown College buildings. The evidence tended to show that there was faulty construction of the warehouse building, and that appellant expended the sum...