Davison v. Parks
| Decision Date | 28 June 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 1585.,1585. |
| Citation | 108 A. 288 |
| Parties | DAVISON v. PARKS et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Grafton County; Sawyer, Judge.
Action by Guy S. Davison against Norman E. Parks and others, resulting in directed verdict for plaintiff, and defendants except. Exceptions overruled.
Trover for a truck. The defendant's evidence tended to prove that the plaintiff, a manufacturer of Longford trucks, employed one Jordan to establish an agency for the sale of these trucks in the town of Colebrook, and authorized him to sell the truck in question for $300. Jordan traded it to the defendants for an automobile.
Prank P. Tilton, of Laconia, for plaintiff.
Drew, Shurtleff, Morris & Oakes, of Lancaster, for defendants.
The questions raised by the defendant's exception are whether there is any evidence lending to prove: (1) That the plaintiff expressly authorized Jordan to trade the truck for an automobile, or (2) that Jordan had implied, or (3) apparent authority to make the trade, or (4) that it is the custom in the automobile business for those who are employed to sell trucks to trade them for other property. 2 C. J. 559, 560. The only evidence tending to prove that Jordan was expressly authorized to dispose of the truck is his testimony that he was authorized to sell it for $300. If "to sell" is given its ordinary meaning, Jordan's only authority, in so far as disposing of the truck is concerned, was to sell it for cash. Taylor & Farley Organ Co. v. Starkey, 59 N. H. 142; 21 R. C. L. 867. As there is no evidence tending to prove that that was not the sense in which the plaintiff used "to sell," it must be held that Jordan was not expressly authorized to make the trade in question.
An act an agent is not expressly authorized to do may bind his principal if it is one that is necessary to enable him to effectuate the purpose for which the agency is established. For example: An agent for the sale of spirituous liquor may buy liquor on the credit of the town if the town fails to supply him with funds for that purpose. Backman v. Charlestown, 42 N. H. 125. The test, therefore, to determine whether authority to make the trade in question was incidental to Jordan's authority to establish an agency for the sale of trucks is to inquire whether Jordan could effectuate the purpose for which he was employed—to establish an agency for the sale of trucks in Colebrook— without furnishing the defendants with a sample truck, not whether it would be necessary for them to have a sample if they were to do a successful business.
While it may be true that the defendants could not make the agency a success without a truck to show prospective customers, it was no more necessary in order to establish the agency that Jordan provide them with a sample at their price than that he should agree that they might fix the price at which trucks should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arthur Jordan Piano Company, Inc. v. Lewis
...570; Auto Outing Co. v. McFrederick, 146 Md. 106, 125 A. 886; National Cash Reg. Co. v. Brainson, 37 R. I. 462, 93 A. 645; Davison v. Parks, 79 N.H. 262, 108 A. 288; Brager v. Levy, 122 Md. 554, 90 A. In support of the admissibility of the parol evidence objected to by the plaintiff, Southe......
-
Spann v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co. of Dallas, Tex.
...principal, it must appear that the principal ought to have anticipated that his own acts would mislead the third party. Davison v. Parks, 79 N.H. 262, 108 A. 288, 289; Agency Restatement ß 49, comment b. Nothing appears in the evidence tending to show that Worley should have anticipated tha......
-
Commercial Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mansfield
...upon to establish 'apparent' authority on the part of Federal furnishes no better support for the findings made. In Davison v. Parks, 79 N.H. 262, 263, 108 A. 288, 289, it was pointed out that in order to bind a principal by an act which an agent is not expressly authorized to do, it must a......
-
Castonguay v. Acme Knitting Mach. & Needle Co.
...is one he has authorized his agent to do, or that it is one agents in that line of business are accustomed to do." Davison v. Parks, 79 N. H. 262, 263, 108 A. 288, 289. Under this definition apparent authority may not here be found. There was no evidence of a practice or custom for the mana......