Jasper County Farms Co. v. Holden

• Decision Date: 13 January 1923
• Docket Number: No. 11522.,11522.
• Citation: 137 N.E. 618,79 Ind.App. 214
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Parties: JASPER COUNTY FARMS CO. v. HOLDEN et al.

79 Ind.App. 214

137 N.E. 618

JASPER COUNTY FARMS CO.

v.HOLDEN et al.

No. 11522.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

Jan. 13, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; George A. Williams, Judge.

Action by John Holden and others against the Jasper County Farms Company. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Hanley & Hanley, of Rensselaer, Stebbins, of Garey, and L'Amoreaux & Hurtubise, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Abraham Halleck, of Rensselaer, for appellees.

ENLOE, J.

This was an action by the appellees to recover for goods alleged to have been sold and delivered to the defendant. There was an answer in general denial, and the issue thus formed was submitted to the court for trial, resulting in a finding and judgment in favor of appellees, from which, after their motion for a new trial was overruled, this appeal is prosecuted. The only questions presented arise under the motion for a new trial and are: (a) The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decision of the court; (b) that said decision is contrary to law; and (c) error in admitting certain testimony.

[1][2] It is first urged that the court erred in admitting certain testimony over the objection of the appellant. It was incumbent upon the appellees to establish, not only the fact that one Kupper, with whom their dealings were had, was the agent of appellant, but also to establish the character of the agency, whether general or special. Whether Kupper was or was not the agent of appellant was a question of fact, which could be established as any other fact, either by direct or by circumstantial evidence. Roper v. Cannel City Coal Co., 68 Ind. App. 637, 121 N. E. 96;Ross v. Indiana, etc., Co. (Ind. App.) 130 N. E. 440. The character of said agency, whether general or special, was also a question of fact and for the purpose of determining this fact all the acts and dealings of the said agent were competent. This necessarily follows, because the ostensible powers of an agent are his real powers; and so the vital question was one of apparent authority of the agent. Hoshor-Platt Co. v. Miller et al., 238 Mass. 518, 131 N. E. 310. The question to which objection was made had relation to the transactions between said Kupper, as manager of said farm, and one Halesy. The court did not err in admitting this testimony.

[3] It appears from this record that the appellant is the owner of a farm in Jasper county, Ind., and that one Kupper was the local representative of appellant in charge of said farm; that in the spring of 1921 said Kupper purchased tomato plants from appellees, to be set out on said farm, to the amount of $600, and this suit was brought in an endeavor to collect said sum for the plants so sold. The secretary...