Gulf Yellow Pine Lumber Co. v. Chapman & Co.
| Decision Date | 04 February 1909 |
| Citation | 159 Ala. 444,48 So. 662 |
| Parties | GULF YELLOW PINE LUMBER CO. v. CHAPMAN & CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Geneva County; H. A. Pearce, Judge.
Action by Chapman & Co. against the Gulf Yellow Pine Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
W. O Mulkey, for appellant.
W. R Chapman, for appellees.
This suit is against a private corporation organized under the general statute. The complaint is on the common counts. Among other pleas filed are those setting up the statute of frauds and ultra vires. The evidence without conflict showed tat the goods, wares, and merchandise, for the price of which the suit was brought, were sold and delivered to one Lord to furnish and maintain a boarding house conducted by said Lord and in which the defendant corporation had no interest, and all of which was known to the plaintiffs at the time of the sale and delivery of the goods.
The defendant corporation under its charter powers was at the time engaged in the lumber and milling business, and in connection therewith carried on, under its charter powers, a commissary; but none of the goods so sold went into said commissary, nor in any way were used by the defendant. The plaintiffs declined and refused to sell to Lord when he applied to purchase the goods, and not until one Flowers, the general manager of the defendant corporation, promised the plaintiffs that the defendant would pay for them, did they sell. The charter provision in reference to the commissary authorized the corporation "to operate and maintain a commissary or storehouse, to engage in the buying and sale of goods, wares, and merchandise, and to purchase for either cash or credit, as it may deem proper." Manifestly this power was intended as ancillary to its main business of lumbering and milling, and in no sense was it contemplated as an authorization to purchase goods for another, or to become surety or guarantor for another. Clearly the act of Flowers the general manager, in promising to pay for the goods sold and delivered to Lord was an ultra vires contract, and the fact that the plaintiffs would not have delivered the goods to Lord, but for the promise of Flowers that the defendant would pay for the same, and the further fact that the defendant was indirectly benefited, in that the boarding house run by Lord afforded the defendant's employés a place to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Illinois Fuel Co. v. M. & O. Railroad Co.
...no need, reason or motive for the asserted assumption of such an obligation. Central Railroad Co. v. Smith, 76 Ala. 580; Gulf Lumber Co. v. Chapman & Co., 159 Ala. 444; Alabama Railroad Co. v. Loveman Compress Co., 196 Ala. 683; Steiner & Lobman v. Land & Lumber Co., 120 Ala. 128; Bailey Ir......
-
Illinois Fuel Co. v. Mobile & O.R. Co.
... ... Vandecar, 59 Ore ... 187; Satler Lumber Co. v. Exler, 239 Penn. 135; ... Stanley v. Railroad ... Central ... Railroad Co. v. Smith, 76 Ala. 580; Gulf Lumber Co ... v. Chapman & Co., 159 Ala. 444; Alabama ... ...
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Loveman Compress Co.
... ... 128, 26 So. 494, and cases there cited; ... Gulf Yellow Pine Co. v. Chapman & Co., 159 Ala. 444, ... 48 So ... ...
-
Cunningham Hardware Co. v. Gama Transportation Co.
... ... note was indorsed by the Bay City Lumber Company, a ... corporation, and, not being paid at ... in the case of Gulf Yellow Pine Lumber Co. v. Chapman & ... Co., 159 Ala. 444, ... ...