Dark Tob. Growers' Co-Operative Assn. v. Garth
| Decision Date | 18 February 1927 |
| Citation | 218 Ky. 391 |
| Parties | Dark Tobacco Growers' Co-Operative Association v. Garth. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
1. Exceptions, Bill of — Where Time for Filing Bill of Exceptions and Evidence is Extended to Following Term, Presiding Judge May Attest Bill, Though he Does Not Preside at Following Term (Acts 1920, Chapter 118, Amending Civil Code of Practice, Section 334). — When time for filing bill of exceptions and evidence was extended to following term, regular and special judge who presided at the trial, and who, at time bill was filed, was neither dead, nor had his term of office expired, had power to attest the bill under Acts 1920, c. 118, Civil Code of Practice, section 334, though another special judge presided at following term.
2. Principal and Agent — Principal is Bound by Agent's Contract Within Limits of Express or Implied Authority, Generally Whether Authority is Written or Oral. — Principal is bound by contract of his agent made within the scope of the agent's express authority at the time or within the scope of his implied authority, and this whether the contract is verbal or written, unless law requires agent's authority to be written in order to bind principal in particular case.
3. Principal and Agent — Agent's Contract Within Authority and for Benefit of Principal Binds Principal, Though Made in Name of Agent Alone. — Contract entered into by agent within his authority, and for benefit of principal, will bind the principal as though the contract had been expressly executed in his name, notwithstanding that it was entered into in the name of the agent alone, and this is true whether contract is verbal or written, unless the law requires agent's authority to be written in particular instance.
4. Husband and Wife — Membership Contract in Co-operative Marketing Association, Entered in Name of Husband Alone, Held to Bind Wife as Undisclosed Principal. — Where husband was general agent of wife in growing, producing, and marketing crops, held that membership contract in co-operative tobacco marketing association, entered into in name of husband only, was in law the contract of the wife, who was liable for its breach, notwithstanding that the husband did not have written authority from the wife to sign the contract.
5. Husband and Wife — Liability for Breach of Membership Contract in Co-operative Marketing Association Held Not Affected by Subsequent Change in Authority of Husband as Agent Making Contract. — Where membership contract in co-operative tobacco marketing association, entered into by husband, was contract of wife as undisclosed principal, subsequent changes between husband and wife in management of farm affecting his authority could not affect wife's liability for breach of contract.
6. Husband and Wife — Evidence Held Not to Show Change in Husband's Authority so as to Relieve Wife from Liability for Breach of Marketing Contract Signed by Husband for Wife. — In suit for breach of membership contract in co-operative tobacco marketing association, signed by husband for wife, evidence held not to show substantial changes in husband's authority as to management of farm so as to relieve wife from liability for breach of contract.
7. Courts — Determinations by Court of Appeals on Injunction Motions Before Single Justice are Not Binding, but are as Persuasive as Opinions of Other Courts of Last Resort (Civil Code of Practice, Section 297). — Determinations, on applications to Court of Appeals before a single member for reinstatement or dissoluction of injunctions, under Civil Code of Practice, section 297, are not binding, and without the authority of an opinon by the court, but are at least as persuasve as opinions of courts of last resort in other jurisdictions.
Appeal from Todd Circuit Court.
EVERETT S. PENICK, C.A. DENNY and ROY G. GARRISON for appellant.
PETRIE & STANDARD for appellee.
Reversing.
On April 26, 1922, Alexander Garth, the husband of appellee and defendant below, Evie Garth, signed a membership contract in the appellant and plaintiff below, Dark Tobacco Growers' Co-operative Association. Defendant owned by inheritance from her mother a farm in Todd county containing 360 acres, and both prior and subsequent to the mother-in-law's death the husband seems to have had the sole and exclusive management and operation of the farm upon which he and his tenants grew an assortment of crops, including tobacco. He, without consulting his wife, made the tenant contracts, sold the produce and collected the money, depositing it sometimes in his name, but more frequently in that of his wife, and when so done he would issue checks for current expenses to which he would subscribe his wife's name by him, and in that way he appears to have had complete control of not only the management of the farm, but also the disposition of its products. For the years 1922 and 1923, without any objection from his wife, this defendant, he delivered all the tobacco grown on the farm to the association pursuant to the obligations of the membership contract. He became dissatisfied with its workings and operations and he and the defendant claim to have had a new understanding at the beginning of the year 1924, by which he would cease growing tobacco and that what was thereafter grown should be at the instance, request and under the control and management of defendant exclusively. Some twenty odd acres of that product was grown in 1924 and the tenants delivered it to a loose-leaf warehouse and it was sold outside of the pool. In other words, the crop for that year was disposed of by what is commonly known as the "dumping" process, and this ordinary action was filed in the Todd circuit court to recover of defendant the 5% liquidated damages provided for in the membership contract in such cases. The answer denied that defendant was a member of the association, or that she had ever been, and asserted her right to ignore the contract signed by her husband alone, and that pursuant thereto she did ignore it in the manner indicated for the year 1924. Appropriate pleadings made the issues, and upon trial the court overruled plaintiff's motion for a peremptory instruction in its favor, and submitted the cause to the jury under instructions and it returned a verdict in favor of defendant, upon which judgment was pronounced dismissing the petition. Plaintiff's motion for a new trial was overruled, and it prosecutes this appeal.
At the beginning we are met with a motion to strike the bill of exceptions and evidence from the record upon the ground that it was not attested by the special judge who presided at the March, 1926, term of the Todd circuit court when it was filed pursuant to an extended time for the purpose, given by another special judge who presided at the trial during the December, 1925, term. The trial special judge was Hon. Basil Richardson, the regular circuit judge of the 10th circuit court judicial district, and he gave until a named day in the following March, 1926, term for plaintiff to prepare and file its bill of exceptions and evidence. At the latter term Hon. Doyle Willis, a practicing attorney at the bar, was designated and presided as special judge for that term. The bill of exceptions, duly attested by Judge Richardson, was tendered and filed at the March, 1926, term of court within the extended time, but Special Judge Willis did not attest it, and for that reason it is insisted that it was not properly attested and should be stricken. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial