California Development Co. v. Yuma Valley Union Land & Water Co.
| Decision Date | 09 January 1906 |
| Docket Number | Civil 899 |
| Citation | 9 Ariz. 366,84 P. 88 |
| Parties | CALIFORNIA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant and Appellant, v. YUMA VALLEY UNION LAND AND WATER COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellee |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Third Judicial District in and for the County of Yuma. Edward Kent, Judge. Affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Edwin A. Meserve, and Paul H. McPherrin, for Appellant.
The evidence of Mr. Ingraham, attorney and witness for plaintiff and Mr. Sexsmith clearly and beyond all doubt shows that Mr Sexsmith was acting under special instructions communicated to the plaintiff's officers, and that he had no authority whatever to contract to hire or to receive the barge until it had been first insured. Sexsmith was a mere foreman of the defendant corporation, without authority to sign its name to contracts or to bind it in any manner, except in the direct line of his employment.
An agent's authority cannot be shown by his own declarations. Rawson v. Curtiss, 19 Ill. 456; Stringham v. St. Nicholas Ins. Co., 4 Abb. Ct. App Dec. 315; Fulton v. Lydecker, 46 N.Y. 296, 19 N.Y.S 374; Fullerton v. McLaughlin, 70 Hun, 568, 24 N.Y.S. 280; Sier v. Bache, 7 Misc. 165, 27 N.Y.S. 255; Duffus v. Schwinger, 79 Hun, 541, 29 N.Y.S. 930; Fleming v. Ryan, 9 Misc. 496, 30 N.Y.S. 224; Plano Mfg. Co. v. Root, 3 N. Dak. 165, 54 N.W. 924; Whiting v. Lake, 91 Pa. St. 349.
The authority of an agent to act for his principal cannot be proved by the former's acts and declarations. Sencerbox v. McGrade, 6 Minn. 484.
The unauthorized acts or declarations of an agent are inadmissible to show the scope or extent of his authority. Alt v. Grosclose, 61 Mo.App. 409.
The declarations of an agent, although accompanied by acts, are inadmissible in favor of a third person against the principal to proye the extent of the agent's authority. Brigham v. Peters, 1 Gray, 139.
The declarations of the agent, though accompanying his acts, constitute no evidence of the extent of his authority. Dowden v. Cryder, 55 N.J.L. 329, 26 A. 941.
The authority of an agent to make draft for his principal cannot be established by his own statement or declaration made when the draft is presented and indorsed. McDonough v. Heyman, 38 Mich. 334.
In an action for the price of logs claimed to have been purchased by defendant through his agent, the declarations of the alleged agent when he purchased them concerning his relations with the defendant are inadmissible. Comegys v. American Lumber Co., 8 Wash. 661, 36 P. 1087.
To bind a person named as principal in a contract showing on its face that it was accepted by an agent, the latter's authority to act for the principal must be shown. Swaine v. Maryott, 28 N.J. Eq. 589.
To charge a principal in a contract made by his agent, the authority of the agent must be clearly proved, and that it was strictly pursued. Bank of Hamburg v. Johnson, 3 Rich. Law, 42.
Those who deal with an agent whose authority is limited to special purposes are bound at their peril to know the extent of his authority. Williamson v. Richardson, Fed. Cas. No. 17754.
Where an agent acts under an express or special power, verbal or written, one dealing with him is bound to know what this power is and its legal effect. Payne v. Potter, 9 Iowa, 549.
See, also, Johnson v. Wingate, 29 Me. 404; Equitable Life Assur. Society v. Poe, 53 Md. 28; Dowden v. Cryder, 55 N.J.L. 329, 26 A. 941; Keith v. Puris, 4 Desaus. 114; Fort Worth etc. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 2 Wils. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. 232; United States v. Williams, 1 Ware, 173, Fed. Cas. No. 16724; Marvin v. Universal Life Ins. Co., 85 N.Y. 278, 39 Am. Rep. 657.
Where property has been lost or destroyed through the negligent act of another, the usual rule as to the measure of damages is the reasonable worth of the property at the time of its destruction. Barngrover v. Maac, 46 Mo.App. 407; Parke v. Frank, 75 Cal. 364, 17 P. 427; Lyon County School Dist. No. 46 v. Lund, 51 Kan. 731, 33 P. 595; Biglow v. Carney, 18 Mo.App. 534; Forrest v. Buchanan, 203 Pa. St. 454, 53 A. 267; Howard v. Taylor, 99 Ala. 450, 13 So. 121; McConey v. Wallace, 22 Mo.App. 377; Fessler v. Love, 48 Pa. St. 407; Churchill v. Price, 44 Wis. 540; Fairchild v. Rogers, 32 Minn. 269, 20 N.W. 191. See, also, Lee v. Callahan, 84 N.Y.S. 167; Connelly v. Interurban Street Ry. Co., 86 N.Y.S. 213; International etc. R.R. Co. v. Wiegriffe, (Tex. Civ. App.) 78 S.W. 704; Wagner v. Conway, 76 A.D. 623, 78 N.Y.S. 420; Houston etc. Ry. Co. v. Cluck, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 211, 72 S.W. 83.
Thomas Armstrong, Jr., and Fred L. Ingraham, for Appellee.
Where an agency is shown to exist it is presumed to be general and not special. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Simons, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 621, 25 S.W. 996; Collins v. Cooper, 65 Tex. 465; Reynolds v. Collins, 78 Ala. 94; Proctor v. Towns, 115 Ill. 138, 3 N.E. 569; Sharp v. Knox, 48 Mo.App. 169; Methuen Co. v. Hayes, 33 Me. 169.
In all cases where the agent acts within the apparent scope of his authority his acts are binding on his principal, and this is especially true of corporations, which are unable to act except through agents. Winchell v. National Express Co., 64 Vt. 15, 23 A. 728; Walsh v. Hartford F.I. Co., 73 N.Y. 5; Lake Shore etc. Ry. Co. v. Foster, 104 Ind. 293, 54 Am. Rep. 319, 4 N.E. 20.
In such cases the question is not what authority was intended to be given the agent, but what authority was the third person dealing with him justified from the acts of the principal in believing was given to him. Griggs v. Selden, 58 Vt. 561, 5 A. 504.
Restrictions on the power of the agent are not binding on a third person dealing with the agent in good faith, unless he knows that the agent is violating his instructions. Shelbyville Tr. v. Shelbyville etc. Turnpike Co., 58 Ky. (1 Met.) 54; Jones v. Shelbyville etc. Ins. Co., 58 Ky. (1 Met.) 58; Mt. Olivette Cemetery Co. v. Shubert, 39 Tenn. (2 Head) 116; Choteaux v. Leech, 18 Pa. St. 224, 57 Am. Dec. 602; Williams v. Getty, 31 Pa. St. 461, 72 Am. Dec. 757; Edwards v. Schafer, 49 Barb. 291; Insurance Co. v. McCain, 96 U.S. 84, 24 L.Ed. 653.
-- The Yuma Valley Union Land and Water Company, a corporation, hereinafter called the "Union Company," brought suit in the district court of Yuma County against the California Development Company, a corporation, hereinafter called the "Development Company," to recover upon a contract for the lease of a certain dipper dredge owned by the Union Company, by the terms of which contract the Development Company agreed to make certain repairs on the dredge, to use it in the construction of its canal in California, and return it on or before a specified date to the Union Company at Yuma. The complaint alleged that the dredge was not returned according to the terms of the contract, and prayed for damages in the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars for its non-return. The Development Company in its answer denied under oath the execution of the contract sued upon, and alleged that the party signing its name to the said contract was without power or authority so to do; denied that it ever rented, received, or had in its possession the said dredge; and denied that it lost the same or caused its loss as alleged by the plaintiff. It further put in issue the value of the dredge as alleged by the plaintiff. The case was tried by the court without a jury. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and against the defendant, in the sum of $7,097.85, the value of the dredge as found by the court, and the costs. From this judgment the Development Company has appealed.
The appellant, by its first assignment of error, challenges the correctness of numerous rulings of the court in overruling objections made by appellant to various questions put by appellee to certain witnesses, and in denying motions to strike from the record numerous answers made to questions put to these witnesses by appellee. The assignment is subject to the objection that it does not conform to the rules and practice of this court, in that it embodies in one assignment many disconnected rulings. Disregarding this defect, however, and treating the assignment as though properly made, a consideration of the rulings complained of does not disclose reversible error. Each of them pertains to the testimony admitted into the record. As the case was tried to the court, unless it should affirmatively appear otherwise, it will be presumed that such of the answers of the witnesses as may have been incompetent were disregarded by the court. The record does not show that any of the court's findings were based upon testimony which should not have been admitted. United States v. Marks, 5 Ariz. 405, 52 P. 773.
The second assignment of error made by the appellant is based upon the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of the court that the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the value of the dredge, and that the latter was worth the sum of $7,097.85. The liability of the Development Company hinged upon two questions of fact: The first was whether or not the agent of the Development Company who signed the name of the company to the contract had authority from the company to execute it on its behalf; second, whether there was a delivery of the dredge...
To continue reading
Request your trial