Austin-Western Road Machinery Co. v. Veal, 9407.
| Decision Date | 24 October 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 9407.,9407. |
| Parties | AUSTIN-WESTERN ROAD MACHINERY CO. v. VEAL et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
D. M. Parker, of Waycross, Ga., for appellant.
J. P. Highsmith, of Baxley, Ga., for appellees.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, declaring on a written contract, sued appellees, alleging: the sale of a tractor to an unincorporated voluntary association of persons known as Appling County Timber Protective Organization; that the defendants were members of such Association and authorized the written contract of purchase; that they thereby became joint contractors with the plaintiff; that defendants had paid $952, leaving a balance due of $3,950.45, for which plaintiff sued. The complaint made no claim that any of the defendants had signed the contract personally or that any were bound on the face of the contract. The claim was merely that they had authorized its making and had thereby become bound. The defense was that the contract sued on had not been authorized by the association or by any of those sued; that all that the defendants had agreed to was that the tractor should be delivered to the organization for its leasing, plaintiff to look for its pay to such rents as might be gotten therefrom. Plaintiff offered the written contract signed on the one hand by plaintiff and on the other by Appling County Timber Protective Organization, by W. L. Veal, president, Jean M. DuPuis, secretary and treasurer. The contract did not purport to bind any of the defendants, none of their signatures were appended to it. It was in terms a contract of leasing with an option to purchase and an agreement to credit these payments on the total. It was in legal effect a conditional contract of sale.
Plaintiff offered no minutes, resolutions or other proof showing that the contract was the contract of the organization; that is, that it had been signed by anyone having authority to bind it. Defendants proved that the Association was a non-profit governmental association, an adjunct to the United States Forestry Service in Appling County, Georgia, and as such, not organized nor existing for trade or profit. In addition each, except Veal, testified that he had not authorized or had anything to do with the making of the written contract, and each, including Veal, testified that he had agreed to nothing with regard to the tractor except that the organization should take it for leasing, plaintiff to get its pay from such leases as might be made.
Plaintiff objected to this evidence as an attempt to vary and contradict the terms of the written contract. These objections were overruled and there was a jury verdict for defendants. No motion for a directed verdict was made, no exceptions were taken to the charge. Indeed, except for appellant's unavailing attempt now to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, the case comes here upon only one claimed error, that the court erred in admitting the evidence of the defendants that they did not authorize or make the written agreement sued on. We think it quite plain that there was no error in admitting this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pinsky v. Pikesville Recreation Council, 0052
...expect that officers would be personally liable and knew that they were acting in a representative capacity); Austin–W. Rd. Mach. Co. v. Veal, 115 F.2d 112, 113 (5th Cir.1940) (same); Empire City Job Print v. Harbord, 244 A.D. 6, 277 N.Y.S. 795 (1935) (no liability when plaintiff has knowle......
-
United States v. Harrell
...the evidence is sufficient." Baten et al. v. Kirby Lumber Corp., 5 Cir., 103 F.2d 272, 274. And see Austin-Western Road Machinery Co. v. Veal et al., 5 Cir., 115 F.2d 112, 113; F. W. Woolworth Co. et al v. Seckinger, et al., 5 Cir., 125 F.2d 97. Since the government failed to move the trial......
-
Arco Bag Co. v. Facings, Inc.
...by the plaintiff. Breece Veneer & Ranel Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 7 Cir., 1956, 232 F.2d 319; Austin-Western Road Machinery Co. v. Veal, 5 Cir., 1940, 115 F.2d 112. This court must determine whether or not the contracts in question specifically provide that upon default by th......
-
Jorgensen v. York Ice Machinery Corporation
...we should not have sustained it. Judgment affirmed. 1 Baten v. Kirby Lumber Company, 5 Cir., 103 F.2d 272; Austin-Western Road Machinery Company v. Veal, 5 Cir., 115 F.2d 112; United States v. Harrell, 8 Cir., 133 F.2d 504, 506; Woodbridge v. DuPont, 2 Cir., 133 F.2d 904; Edwards v. Craig, ......