Eagle Iron Co. v. Baugh

• Decision Date: 14 June 1906
• Citation: 41 So. 663,147 Ala. 613
• Parties: EAGLE IRON CO. v. BAUGH.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

41 So. 663

147 Ala. 613

EAGLE IRON CO. v. BAUGH.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 14, 1906

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Jack Baugh against the Eagle Iron Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

This was an action by appellee against appellant for failure to take 500 cords of oak and pine wood, which appellant had contracted to take from appellee, and which appellee had tendered to defendant. The disputed question was whether or not Stewart was the agent of appellant with authority to make the contract for the purchase of the wood, and there was conflict in the testimony as to the value of the wood and of the cost of putting it on the line of railroad. The action was begun against appellant and one Stewart jointly. Stewart resided in the county in which the suit was brought, while the appellant corporation had no place of business there, but had its works and other things in Etowah county. After the testimony was in, plaintiff was allowed to amend his complaint by striking Stewart as a party defendant. The Eagle Iron Company then asked leave to file plea in abatement setting up the fact for want of jurisdiction of the court to try the cause in the absence of Stewart.

The court, at the request of the plaintiff gave the following charge: Charge 3: "The court charges the jury that the burden of proving that H. J. Carwile delivered 425 cords of wood on the contract sued on is on the defendant, and it is not sufficient for the defendant to show merely that 425 cords of wood were sold and delivered to defendant; but it must be proven by defendant with reasonable certainty that the wood was put in on this contract, and not on some other contract." Charge 6, requested by the defendant, was the general affirmative charge.

J. A Lusk, for appellant.

Street & Isbell, for appellee.

ANDERSON J.

"The authority of an agent, where the question of its existence is directly involved, can only be established by tracing it to its source in some word or act of the alleged principal. The agent cannot confer authority upon himself. Evidence of his own statements or admissions, therefore, is not admissible against his principal for the purpose of establishing enlarging, or renewing his authority; nor can his authority be established by showing that he acted as agent or that he claimed to have the powers which he assumed to exercise." Mechem on Agency, § 100; Galbreath v Cole, 61 Ala. 140; Wharton on Evidence, § 1184; Scarborough v. Reynolds, 12 Ala. 252; Postal Co v. Lenoir, 107 Ala. 640, 18 South, 266; L. & N. R R. Co. v. Hill, 115 Ala. 334, 22 South 163. Any declaration of the agent as to his authority would be admissible, when other evidence had been shown from which authority to do the thing may be inferred; or, if the trial court improperly admitted declarations of the agent, the error would be cured by evidence subsequently introduced from which authority might be inferred, and in case such evidence was introduced the question of authority would become one of fact for the determination of the jury. Birmingham R. R. Co. v. Tenn. Co., 127 Ala. 137, 28 So. 679. There was evidence from which the jury could infer that McClane, the superintendent, had authority to contract for and buy wood for the defendant, and to delegate the authority to others, and that Stewart was its agent, independent of the acts and declarations of McClane and Stewart. There was evidence from which it could be inferred that these men were held out as agents with authority to buy wood, and also of a...