Holleman v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 15 April 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 365.,365. |
| Citation | 158 S.E. 88 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | HOLLEMAN. v. TAYLOR et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; Clement, Judge.
Action by S. R. Holleman against E. S. Taylor and the Rawls-Dickson Candy Company. Prom a judgment for plaintiff against both defendants, defendant last named appeals.
New trial awarded.
This is an action for the recovery of damages for injury to the plaintiff's automobile resulting from its collision with a car driven by the defendant Taylor. The collision occurred at the intersection of Glenn and Twenty-Fifth streets in the city of Winston-Salem. The defendants filed separate answers denying liability and pleading contribu-tory negligence, Taylor setting up also a cross-action against the plaintiff. The issues were answered in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment was rendered against both defendants.
The plaintiff alleged that Taylor was employed by the Rawls-Dickson Candy Company to sell and distribute its goods and at the time of the collision was acting as its servant or agent within the scope of his employment. The defendants contended that Taylor sold the goods on consignment and not in the capacity of agent or servant.
The court charged the jury that the relation of agency existed between the two defendants, and that, if Taylor was negligent, the Rawls-Dickson Candy Company also was negligent; that is, if Taylor was liable in damages, the Rawls-Dickson Company would also be liable. The appellant excepted.
Manly, Hendren & Womble, of Winston-Salem, for appellant.
J. M. Wells, Jr., John C. Wallace, and L. L. Wall, all of Winston-Salem, for appellee.
The trial court was indefinite in explaining to the jury the distinction between the relation of master and servant and that of principal and agent or factor. The former relation arises out of a contract of employ ment between a master or employer and a servant or employee, and usually contemplates the employer's right both to prescribe the end and to direct the means and methods of doing the work. In a specific sense a servant is one who represents the will of the master, not only in the ultimate result of the work, but in the details by which the result is accomplished. True, the law of principal and agent is an expansion of the law of master and servant, and in certain cases the distinction between the two is of slight importance. In other cases the distinction is decisive of legal rights. For example, a factor is an agent,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGregor Co. v. Heritage
...which are in his possession, for a commission; a factor may sell in his own name without disclosing the principal. Holleman v. Taylor, 200 N.C. 618, 158 S.E. 88 (1931); Kellogg v. Costello and others, 93 Wis. 232, 67 N.W. 24 (1896). Although a factor may perform some labor on the goods whil......
-
Salley v. Petrolane, Inc.
...by contract, express or implied. See, e.g., Alliance Co. v. State Hosp. at Butner, 241 N.C. 329, 85 S.E.2d 386 (1955); Holleman v. Taylor, 200 N.C. 618, 158 S.E. 88 (1931). In the instant case, the employment contract was between Plaintiff and the corporate Defendants, and therefore only th......
-
State v. Frazier, COA00-122.
...implied. See Dockery v. McMillan, 85 N.C.App. 469, 355 S.E.2d 153, review denied, 320 N.C. 167, 358 S.E.2d 49 (1987); Holleman v. Taylor, 200 N.C. 618, 158 S.E. 88 (1931). There was neither an express nor an implied contract under these circumstances. Defendant did not make a wage that woul......
-
In re Griffin
...or factor with authority to sell in his own name without disclosing the agency or the name of the principal." Holleman v. Taylor, 200 N.C. 618, 620, 158 S.E. 88, 89 (1931). (Emphasis Armour takes the position that all transactions involving the fertilizer were governed by the contract betwe......