Guignard Brick Works v. Allen University

• Decision Date: 01 April 1930
• Docket Number: 12876.
• Parties: GUIGNARD BRICK WORKS v. ALLEN UNIVERSITY.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

152 S.E. 707

155 S.C. 507

GUIGNARD BRICK WORKS v. ALLEN UNIVERSITY.

No. 12876.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 1, 1930

Appeal from Richland County Court; M. S. Whaley, Judge.

Action by the Guignard Brick Works against the Allen University. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

The charge of the trial judge and the exceptions directed to be reported were as follows:

Judge's Charge to the Jury.

Mr Foreman and gentlemen, the plaintiff is claiming that between the 23rd of March and the 5th of April, 1928, they sold and delivered to the Allen University bricks to the value of $312.00; that demand for payment has been made and payment has been refused and plaintiff is now in Court asking for that amount with interest.

Mr Robinson, you are asking for interest?

Mr Robinson: It being an account stated, we think we are entitled to interest.

The Court: Is it an account agreed to to such an extent as to bear interest?

Mr Robinson: As I understand they are not disputing any item of the account, but liability in toto; not that any particular item is incorrect, but the question of liability at all. Under that theory it seems that we are entitled to interest on the account if they are liable at all.

The Court: In other words, there is no dispute as to the amount and the amount would be correct, if the bill were due?

Mr Frederick: We dispute everything, if your Honor please. We dispute every item, that is what my pleadings say.

The Court: I don't think it is an account stated.

Mr. Robinson: We make no point of it, the interest is an immaterial item.

The Court: So it is the amount of $312.00 in dispute.

The defendant comes into Court and denies that they bought any brick or owe anything for any brick as alleged and for its contention claims that a certain wall was built by one G. E. Curry as contractor, and Curry was not an agent of the defendant and that when the contract was fulfilled by Curry it paid its obligation in full to him.

There you have the two contentions of the respective parties. You gentlemen have to pass on the facts. Where there is a dispute you have to decide what are the true facts and come to your conclusion in the light of the law governing the parties in the case.

The plaintiff has come into Court asserting a claim, so the burden is upon the plaintiff of proving this claim by the preponderance or greater weight or greater truth of the testimony. By preponderance the law does not necessarily mean the greater quantity of testimony or the greater number of witnesses, but it means the greater truth of it. That testimony, in other words, in which you gentlemen have the greater faith.

In other words, where does the greater truth lie. You gentlemen have to ascertain and answer that question.

Now, from the standpoint of the law and from the standpoint of the issues to be decided, the case is one that narrows itself down considerably. The plaintiff claims here that these goods were sold to Allen University through someone acting for Allen University.

Someone had to act for it, if at all, because it is a corporate body. It is not an individual. And the defendant Allen University comes back and claims that no one had any authority to act for it nor did anyone with authority act for it, but that the goods were sold to an independent contractor.

So for the first issue that you gentlemen meet, one of the main issues in the case, is whether or not Allen University through one authorized under the law, ordered the brick.

Now then, it is a question of whether there was agency. That is one issue.

Now, agency can be in several ways, as far as the law would view it. You may go and buy something from me, Mr. Foreman, and desiring to do it through an agent you may tell me that John Jones has been authorized by you to come and get a bill of stuff from me. There would be the expressed authority which you would express in words.

On the other hand, you may not tell me that you have authorized anyone to act for you and I might go ahead and sell someone goods and without any expressed authorization on your part or notice to me that he might be your agent, but there could be a time when the one who bought from me would be your agent. Now, when would that be? It would be where you were holding one out to the business world to all appearances, to all reasonable appearances as being authorized to act for you. If that one is so held out, we have apparent authority. If I, on the other hand, dealt with that one, and used ordinary care and prudence in dealing with him and relied on that apparent authority, if such be there, then the law would say to you forever after that your mouth was shut in attempting to disclaim any agency on his part. If all those circumstances were present, he would be your agent, although you haven't opened your mouth to me or anyone else to say that he was acting for you in that particular manner. That is known as apparent authority.

Now, whether or not there was apparent authority on the part of someone to act, for Curry to act for Allen University, then whether or not the agent of the Guignard people used ordinary care in relying upon these appearances, whatever they were, if there were any, are questions that you gentlemen have to decide.

If you believe that there was present circumstances there reasonably indicating authority, and if the representatives of the Guignard Brick Works used ordinary care, that care which an ordinarily reasonable prudent business man under like circumstances would have used in relying upon that apparent authority, if such were there, then the law would say that that party was an agent.

Now, was there such an agency on the part of Curry for Allen University? I cannot answer it, because the law tells me that that is something you gentlemen have to ferret out and that you gentlemen have to answer.

Now, if there was no such holding out there was no such apparent authority for Curry to act for the Allen University, then Allen University would not owe this debt.

Even if there were appearances tending reasonably to show that Curry might have authority as agent for Allen University, still if you believe that the representative of the Guignard Brick Works did not use that care which an ordinarily reasonable prudent business man would have used under all the circumstances and if an ordinarily reasonable prudent man, under these circumstances, would not have relied and considered that man an agent of Allen University, then Allen University would not be liable, because there would be no agency. If they sold to that man, they sold at their own risk. They sold to Curry and could only look to Curry, if you find that to be true.

Now, what were the circumstances? I say again, you gentlemen have to ferret out what the circumstances were and come to your conclusion as to whether there was that apparent authority there or whether it was not there.

Now, there is another way in which one may make themselves liable. It all depends on the surrounding circumstances of one's acts. As it is said in the law, admissions may sometimes be implied from the mere silence of a party, if the party who is silent knows of his rights at the time of being silent and reasonably fails to assert them. You have to take all the facts and circumstances here and say whether there was silence and if there was, what would the surrounding circumstances of the silence say whether or not in the last analysis Allen University has made itself liable for this account or whether it has not.

If you believe that the goods were sold to Curry as an independent contractor and solely as such, then in that event, Allen Univsity could not be held liable.

Write your verdict whatever it may be on the back of the summons and complaint.

If you find for the plaintiff, the form of your verdict would be, we find for the plaintiff $312.00, because you would have to find the full amount if you find at all, write out the amount in words and not in figures and sign your name after that and write the word foreman after your name.

If you find for the defendant, the form of your verdict will be, we find for the defendant, and sign your name after that likewise and put the word foreman after your name.

Is there any general proposition I have left out for the plaintiff?

Mr. Robinson: None.

The Court: Is there any general proposition I have left out for the defendant?

Mr. Frederick: I don't know whether I caught, your Honor, that one before dealing with an agent, or one who may be taken for an agent, must ascertain as to whether or not he has authority and power to act as agent.

The Court: He does not necessarily have to go that far. If the circumstances surrounding one is such as to reasonably indicate to a person that that one is an agent of another then the party out in the business world who should attempt to deal with that one surrounded with those appearances, if there be such there, does not necessarily have to ascertain if that one has actual authority. All that that one has to do who is dealing with that person surrounded by those appearances, if there are such, all that he has to do as I have said before, is to use that care which an ordinarily reasonable prudent business man would use under like circumstances before relying upon those appearances whatever they may be. I had already given that, but I give it in that way to make it as clear as I can. That is as far as I can go in charging that .

Exceptions.

I. His Honor erred in not granting a nonsuit, for that,

(a) There is no dispute as to the facts from which agency by estoppel could be inferred, there being no agency in fact proven or attempted to be proven, and said facts are insufficient to infer

...