Fulton v. Sword Medicine Co.

• Decision Date: 17 February 1906
• Citation: 40 So. 393,145 Ala. 331
• Parties: FULTON v. SWORD MEDICINE CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

40 So. 393

145 Ala. 331

FULTON v. SWORD MEDICINE CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 17, 1906

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1906.

Appeal from City Court of Bessemer; William Jackson, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by the Sword Medicine Company against T. R. Fulton. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

B. G Perry, for appellant.

J. A Estes, for appellee.

SIMPSON J.

This was a suit based upon a written order, signed by the defendant and addressed to the plaintiff, by which the defendant ordered certain goods, agreeing therein to pay certain specified prices, and in said order it was stated among other things, "that none of the medicine shall be returned for credit," and closes with these words: "I, or either of us, accept this order on terms stated above. There is no verbal agreement aside from this order, of which I have a duplicate." By various pleas, to which there were demurrers, the defendant sets up, in defense to the action, that the plaintiff's "agent, salesman, or drummer," as an inducement to him to buy the goods, told him that, "if he would handle the goods, the plaintiff would guaranty the sale of the goods," and represented to him that, if he would sign the order blank for these goods, he would write plaintiff a letter, to accompany the order, stating to plaintiff not to ship defendant these goods, as embraced in the order, unless they would guaranty the sale of same to defendant. In one of the pleas the defendant alleges that when he signed the order he thought it was merely an agreement about some advertising that was to be done.

The order signed by defendant, when accepted by the plaintiff constituted a contract, which the parties had reduced to writing, and the defendant could not contradict the same by parol testimony. While it is true that, where goods are sold by an agent, the general rule is that, if the principal "seeks to avail himself of the benefits of the contract made by his agent, he is bound by the representations made by the agent." Gilliland v. Dunn, 136 Ala. 327, 34 So. 25; Williamson v. Tyson, 105 Ala. 644, 17 So. 336. Yet this does not contravene other recognized principles of law. "The doctrine of apparent authority can be invoked only by one who has been misled to his detriment by the apparent authority of the agent." Patterson v. Neal, 135 Ala. 482, 33 So. 39. And when a traveling salesman sells goods to a customer...