Chapman v. Americus Oil Co

• Decision Date: 29 June 1903
• Citation: 117 Ga. 881,45 S.E. 268
• Parties: CHAPMAN. v. AMERICUS OIL CO. McLAIN & DANIEL. v. SAME.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

45 S.E. 268

117 Ga. 881

CHAPMAN.

v.AMERICUS OIL CO.

McLAIN & DANIEL.

v.SAME.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 29, 1903.

ACTION ON ACCOUNT — PLEADING — AMENDMENT—PURCHASE BY AGENT—AUTHORITY.

1. On the controlling question in each of these cases, the ruling in the third headnote in the case of Americus Oil Company v. Gurr, 40 S. E. 780, 114 Ga. 624, is decisive.

2. Suit was brought upon an account for a stated quantity of cotton seed sold and delivered at a given price per ton. An amendment was offered, alleging that the defendant agreed to take the cotton seed, and deliver to plaintiff cotton seed meal, which he had failed to do; the amendment averring that, as a result of such failure, the defendant had become liable to plaintiff in a stated sum. Held, that the amendment set forth a new cause of action, and was properly disallowed.

3. There was no error requiring a reversal of the judgment in either case.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Sumter County; Z. A. Littlejohn, Judge.

Action by A. P. Chapman and McLain & Daniel against the Americus Oil Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

W. P. Wallis and Maynard & Lane, for plaintiffs in error.

J. H. Lumpkin, for defendant in error.

COBB, J. The records in these cases are more voluminous than that in the case of Americus Oil Company v. Gurr, 114 Ga. 624, 40 S. E. 780, but on the controlling question in each case substantially the same state of facts is presented. Ward was authorized to buy cotton seed for cash. He was not authorized to buy on credit. When he bought on credit, the Americus Oil Company was not bound, and the plaintiffs were bound to inform themselves of the authority of this special agent There are numerous assignments of error on various rulings made in each case during the progress of the trial, but none of them require a reversal of the judgment in either case. The amendment referred to in the second headnote clearly added a new cause of action, and was properly disallowed. The original suit was for goods sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant. The amendment sought to recover for a failure to deliver goods bought by plaintiff from defendant.

It was sought to take the case of McLain & Daniel out of the ruling in the Gurr Case by showing that the bill of lading was issued in their name, and was never indorsed by their authority; it being contended that Ward had surreptitiously obtained the bill of lading, forging an indorsement thereon, and...