Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. Campbell, 18

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

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 [216 S.W. 21]

[141 Ark. 27] 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 [141 Ark. 28] 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...