Johnson v. Steele
Decision Date | 07 July 1936 |
Citation | 154 Or. 137,59 P.2d 237 |
Parties | JOHNSON v. STEELE et al. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Hall S. Lusk, Judge.
Action by E. A. Johnson against E. T. Steele and another, and the Texas Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Texas Company appeals.
Affirmed.
This is an appeal by the Texas Company, a California corporation from a judgment of the circuit court entered in an action instituted against this appellant and two other defendants (E. T. Steele and Phil Bewley) by the plaintiff for the purpose of recovering damages for a personal injury sustained by him June 10, 1934, when an automobile in which he was riding was struck by a truck operated by Steele and Bewley whom the plaintiff contends were employees of the appellant. The judgment was against the three defendants, but only the Texas Company has appealed.
Wendell K. Phillips, of Portland (Sheppard & Phillips and Willis Potter, all of Portland, on the brief), for appellant.
Lon Bass, of Portland (James H. McMenamin, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.
The appellant (one of the three defendants) does not question the sufficiency of the evidence to establish negligence proximate cause, and the awarded damages, but contends that the record contains no substantial evidence indicating that the defendants Steele and Bewley, mentioned in the preceding statement of facts, and who were the sole occupants of the truck which collided with the car in which the plaintiff was riding, were appellant's agents. It further contends that if a conclusion is warranted that these two individuals were the agents of the appellant, the record contains no substantial evidence indicating that on June 10, 1934, when the truck collided with the car, the two men were acting within the scope of their authority and in furtherance of the business of their principal.
November 22, 1933, the appellant and the defendant E. T. Steele signed an instrument entitled "Commission Agency Agreement" which, after referring to the appellant as a California corporation, and to Steele as being "of St Helens, Oregon (hereinafter called the 'Agent')," provides:
The complaint alleges that on June 10, 1934, the three defendants in conducting their business "did have possession of maintain and operate a certain International automobile truck, motor No. 3637, bearing license No. 56-003, issued by the State of Oregon for the year 1934, which said truck said defendants were on said date operating in a common and joint enterprise and were using and operating and engaged in transporting to the patrons and customers of said defendants certain oil drums of and belonging to the said business of said defendants; plaintiff further alleges that said oil drums and truck were then and there part of defendants' equipment for the carrying on and maintaining their said business and said truck was painted with the signs, trade name and trademark of the said Texas Company." It was on June 10, 1934, that the accident happened. It occurred on the Columbia River Highway near Delena. The complaint, in making the allegation just quoted, states that the truck was being operated on the Columbia River Highway near Delena. The answer, after denying all averments of the complaint "save and except such allegations as may be specifically admitted in these defendants' further and separate answers," avers that on the 22d day of November, 1933, the appellant and Steele executed the contract aforementioned, and then alleges: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lakota Oil & Gas Co. v. City of Casper
... ... Bastian (Utah) 267 P. 1020; Stover v. Peacock ... (Ind.) 141 N.E. 889; Bryant v. Modern Woodmen of ... America (Nebr.) 143 N.W. 331; Johnson v. Steele ... (Ore.) 59 P.2d 237; Ricketts v. Crewdson, 13 ... Wyo. 284; State v. Irvine, 14 Wyo. 318; ... Villalpando v. City of Cheyenne, ... ...
-
Texas Co. v. Wheeless
...327; Gulf Coast Motor Express Co. v. Diggs, 174 Miss. 650, 165 So. 292; Hinton & Walker v. Pearson, 142 Miss. 50, 107 So. 275; Johnson v. Steele, 59 P.2d 237; v. Jackson, 159 Miss. 424, 132 So. 90; Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Curtis, 174 Miss. 768, 165 So. 435; Louisiana Oil Co. v. Renno, 1......
-
Tex. Co v. Zeigler
...v. Claussen Lawrence Const. Co, 168 S.C. 481, 167 S.E. 826, with which compare Sams v. Arthur, 135 S.C. 123, 133 S.E. 205; Johnson v. Steele, 154 Or. 137, 59 P.2d 237; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Pierce, 132 Okl. 167, 269 P. 1076, 61 A.L.R. 218; Fischer v. Havelock, 134 Cal.App. 584, 25 P.2d ......
-
Texas Company v. Zeigler
...Tate Claussen-Lawrence Const. Co., 168 S.C. 481, 167 S.E. 826, with which compare Sams Arthur, 135 S.C. 123, 133 S.E. 205; Johnson Steele, 154 Or. 137, 59 P.(2d) 237; Magnolia Petroleum Co. Pierce, 132 Okl. 167, 269 P. 1076, 61 A.L.R. 218; Fischer Havelock, 134 Cal.App. 584, 25 P.(2d) 864; ......