Clark v. The J. R. Watkins Medical Co.
Decision Date | 02 November 1914 |
Docket Number | 220 |
Citation | 171 S.W. 136,115 Ark. 166 |
Parties | CLARK v. THE J. R. WATKINS MEDICAL COMPANY |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court; J. F. Gautney, Judge; reversed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
The appellee, a corporation organized under the laws of Minnesota and maintaining its principal place of business at Winona, in that State, brought suit against the appellants to recover the price of certain medicines and articles of merchandise furnished by it to them under the terms of a written contract.
Appellants Virgil Clark and Isaac Davidson, entered into a written contract with appellee guaranteeing payment for the articles furnished their principal, Joe Clark, under his contract hence the suit against them.
There was attached to the complaint the exhibits which constituted the contract between the parties upon which this suit was based. The first of these is a writing which has the caption "Application for Agency." This application was dated the 3d of October, 1908, and contained answers to the various questions propounded to the applicant and, among others, the following answers were given, which, stated in narrative form, are as follows: That applicant was a farmer, and had never previously canvassed for any one. That he spoke English, and could furnish the required references. That he was not incapacitated for hard labor, and could furnish a suitable team and wagon, and preferred to have territory assigned to him in the State of Arkansas, in which State his first choice of territory was the county of Independence and his second choice the county of Carroll, but that he would be willing to go to a distance for territory if none was vacant near him. That he could begin canvassing within fifteen or twenty days after the acceptance of his application, and that he would desire to run a time account and pay for goods furnished him, and would want the company to sell him a wagon on credit. This application contained the names of Virgil Clark and Isaac Davidson as names of parties applicant would expect to secure as bondsmen on his contract, if his application was accepted and, upon the acceptance of the application, they became his sureties and have been sued as such.
An agreement was executed between the parties, which bears date October 9, 1908, and which was made exhibit No. 2 to appellee's complaint. This contract recites that the J. R. Watkins Medical Company appoints Joe Clark as a traveling salesman for its products in the following described territory, and no other, namely: In the State of Arkansas, County of Independence; and further that the J. R. Watkins Medical Company agrees to furnish its products f. o. b. cars at place of shipment, to said traveling salesman above mentioned, at such times and in such reasonable quantities as he may order, to be charged to him in accordance with the company's printed price list current, during the term of this contract, which is to be considered a part thereof. That the medicine company promises and agrees to take back all goods left in the possession of the traveling salesman at the time he quits work and to give credit for same at the prices originally charged, provided said goods are returned to the company by prepaid freight and are in the same condition as when shipped, otherwise a reasonable charge will be made for putting such goods into merchantable condition. That if, at the expiration of the service of such traveling salesman, there should be any sum due him by said medical company, the said company agrees to immediately pay the amount so due in cash and, at the expiration of this contract, the medical company agrees to make a new contract with said traveling salesman without requiring his account to be paid in full at that time, provided the amount of his business and the conduct of the same has been satisfactory to the company. That the traveling salesman, for his part, promises to faithfully perform each and all of the agreements printed on the back of this contract. That the contract is not transferable and expires by limitation March 1, 1910. This contract was signed as follows:
The following obligation of the sureties was endorsed upon said writing:
"For and in consideration of the appointment of the above mentioned traveling salesman, we hereby agree to be jointly and severally responsible to said The J. R. Watkins Medical Company for the faithful performance of this contract on the part of said traveling salesman as outlined on the back of this agreement."
After the signatures of the sureties there appears the following statement in parentheses:
"The above mentioned sureties are entitled, upon request, at any time, to a full statement from the traveling salesman's register showing the exact condition of the business."
Among the agreements printed on the back of the contract were the following:
And there was also a statement of various agreements on the part of the traveling salesman and, among others, the following:
A second agreement was entered into between the parties, which was also made an exhibit to the complaint and which reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
El Dorado v. Citizens' Light & Power Co.
...24; 97 U.S. 412; 147 F. 1; 56 N. E. (N. Y.) 528. Contract construed most strongly against party who prepared it. 151 Ark. 81; 112 Ark. 1; 115 Ark. 166; 90 Ark. 276; 35 Ark. 156; 113 Ark. 150 Ark. 492; 26 C. J. 1031, sec. 70. Title or ordinance part thereof. Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1917-E, 534.......
-
Mantle Lamp Company v. Read
...conflict in the testimony. 38 Cyc. 1540; 96 Ark. 368; 39 Ark. 491; 37 Ark. 164; Id. 230; Id. 580; 35 Ark. 146; 36 Ark. 451; 120 Ark. 206; 115 Ark. 166; 23 Ark. 115; 99 Ark. 490; 85 390. MCCULLOCH, C. J. WOOD and HUMPHREYS, JJ., dissent OPINION MCCULLOCH, C. J. This action was instituted by ......
-
Alexander v. Williams-Echols Dry Goods Company
...42 W.Va. 430; 164 Mass. 490; 39 Fla. 523; 69 So. 992. A contract must be construed most strongly against the one who drew it. 73 Ark. 338; 115 Ark. 166; Ark. 1; 151 Ark. 81; 12 Pa. C. Ct. Rep. 363; 126 F. 831; 173 F. 855; 195 F. 731; 94 Ark. 493; 78 Ark. 202. It is a well-settled rule of th......
-
Nakdimen v. Atkinson Improvement Co.
...683. Courts will construe a contract most strictly against the party who prepared it. 84 Ark. 431; 97 Ark. 522; 105 Ark. 518; 112 Ark. 1; 115 Ark. 166. construe contracts most strictly against the party seeking to enforce it. 2 Page, Contr. § 1120; 130 S.W. 836. The contract has not the leg......