John Scowcroft & Sons Co. v. Roselle
| Decision Date | 01 November 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 8310,8310 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 55 A.L.R.2d 1 JOHN SCOWCROFT & SONS CO., a corporation, Plaintiff-respondent, v. Ora ROSELLE, an individual doing business as Summitt Supply Company, Defendant-appellant. |
Anderson & Anderson, Pocatello, for appellant.
B. W. Davis and Gerald W. Olson, Pocatello, for respondent.
Respondent brought this action to recover from appellant the balance due upon an open account for goods, wares and merchandise allegedly sold and delivered to appellant. At the close of respondent's case appellant moved for a judgment of nonsuit upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence. The motion was denied. Appellant then rested his case. The jury rendered a verdict for respondent for $315.70, being the amount shown to be unpaid on the open account. Judgment was entered accordingly. Appellant has appealed to this court from such judgment.
The principal assignments of error are that the court erred in denying appellant's motion for nonsuit and that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.
Appellant resides and has a business in Pocatello. For the past ten years he has also owned a store at Monida, Montana, and has been doing business therein under the trade name of Summitt Supply Company. The store at Monida has not been run by appellant in person but by his agents or representatives. Respondent, through its branch office at Idaho Falls, has from time to time sold merchandise to the Summitt Supply Company. Such merchandise has been paid for by the Summitt Supply Company or by appellant personally.
Respondent is in the wholesale mercantile business with its main offices at Ogden, Utah. In connection with the sale of its merchandise from its Idaho Falls branch, it furnishes to its prospective customers so-called order or buyer's guides listing its merchandise. The customer checks the list of items he wishes to order and returns the order guide to respondent at Idaho Falls. There the order is filled from the Idaho Falls warehouse and shipped to the customer accompanied by a bill of lading. The order guide is also returned to the customer with an invoice of the items shipped. One copy of the invoice is retained at the warehouse and the original invoice goes to the main offices at Ogden where the books and all records of accounts of the company are kept. The foregoing procedure was that mostly followed in the sale of merchandise to the Summitt Supply Company.
Respondent introduced in evidence the original records of its books of account showing the account of Summitt Supply Company for the year 1954. Sometime in 1954, the warehouse foreman of respondent at Idaho Falls approached appellant with a statement of account for the purpose of collecting the same. The warehouse foreman testified that 'Mr. Roselle did state at the time that the fellow that was running his store at Monida should have been taking care of these bills, evidently he wasn't and it was up to him to take care of them and he would do it but he couldn't at the present time.' Appellant, upon cross-examination under the statute, testified as follows:
The ledger statement of account of respondent with appellant shows a payment on April 12, 1954, of $223.02 and on September 23, 1954, of $186.08. This action was commenced on October 4, 1954. On October 6, 1954, appellant paid the sum of $200 on such account.
The basic contention of appellant appears to be that the evidence does not show who was the alleged agent or representative of appellant in charge of the Summitt Supply Company and does not show the authority of any such agent or representative to purchase the merchandise in question or that the same was ever ordered or shipped. In Basye v. Hayes, 58 Idaho 569, 76 P.2d 435, 437, decided in 1938, in sustaining the admission in evidence of the records of a party, we said that "The shopbook rule applies to the books of one party to show sales made to or services rendered for the other party." In 1939 the legislature enacted the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act. Section 9-414, I.C., was a part of such act and reads as follows:
'A record of an act, condition or event, shall, insofar as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cheney v. Palos Verdes Inv. Corp.
...that the business record exception be broadly construed. Curiel v. Mingo, supra; Daniel v. Moss, supra; John Snowcroft & Sons Co. v. Roselle, 77 Idaho 142, 289 P.2d 621 (1955); Henderson v. Allis-Chalmers, 65 Idaho 570, 149 P.2d 133 It was held in Kelson v. Ahlborn, 87 Idaho 519, 393 P.2d 5......
-
Wolford v. Tankersley
...approve the part that is beneficial to him and reject the part that creates a burden.' " And in John Snowcroft & Sons Co. v. Roselle, 77 Idaho 142, 145-146, 289 P.2d 621, 623 (1955), we held the evidence sufficient to show an agent's apparent authority to act on the principal's behalf, and ......
-
Clements v. Jungert
...person from denying the agent's authority. Anderson v. Smith Frozen Foods of Idaho, Inc., supra; John Scowcroft & Sons Co. v. Roselle, 77 Idaho 142, 289 P.2d 621, 55 A.L.R.2d 1 (1955). But apparent authority cannot be created by the acts and statements of the agent alone. Brunette v. Idaho ......
-
Landvik by Landvik v. Herbert
...bind the principal to a contract entered into by the agent with a third party. See Bailey, supra; John Scowcroft & Sons Co. v. Roselle, 77 Idaho 142, 289 P.2d 621 (1955); Tri-Circle, supra. Neither this Court nor the Idaho Supreme Court has applied the doctrine of apparent authority to a cl......