Meder v. Superior Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 17 December 1928 |
| Docket Number | 27412 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | MEDER v. SUPERIOR OIL CO. [*] |
1 CONTRACTS. Contract in consideration for one dollar is sufficient consideration to bind parties; consideration of one dollar, supplemented with offer to perform other agreements, is ample to coerce performance of contract.
A contract made in consideration of one dollar is a sufficient consideration to bind parties signing the same. Where such consideration is supplemented by other agreements to be performed
by the opposite party, and such party offers to perform, the consideration is strengthened, and is ample to coerce performance of the contract.
2 CORPORATIONS. Authority of corporate officer or agent may be proven by acts done with consent of corporation and accented by it, notwithstanding by-laws; evidence relative to corporate officer's authority to execute lease of service station required submission to jury.
The authority of an officer or agent of a corporation may be proven by acts done with consent of the corporation, and accepted by it; notwithstanding a by-law requires the signatures of additional officers, where such by-law is not brought to the notice of the party dealing with the corporation. The evidence in this case examined, and found sufficient for the jury to infer authority in the agent to make contract involved on behalf of the corporation.
APPEAL from circuit court of Harrison county, HON. W. A. WHITE, Judge.
Suit by William F. Meder against the Superior Oil Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Judgment reversed, and cause reversed.
Currie, Stevens & Currie, for appellant.
The contract in this case goes much further than the law requires in regard to mutuality. See 6 R. C. L. 687, sec. 94.
It was contended by appellee in the court below that the "manager, secretary and treasurer" of the defendant corporation did not have the authority to execute the contract on behalf of the corporation; that the secret by-laws of the corporation did not authorize him to sign the contract. Certainly this contention cannot be seriously and successfully argued. See 14 C. J., sec. 430, p. 345, et seq.; Holly Springs Bank v. Pinson, 58 Miss. 42.
Rushing & Guice, for appellee.
Cited: 6 R. C. L. 691, sec. 98; 13 C. J. 329, et seq.; Lee v. Dozier, 40 Miss. 477; 6 R. C. L. 688, sec. 95; Couret v. Conner, 79 So. 230; Kerr v. Calvit, 12 Am. Dec. 537; Kolb v. Bennett Land Co., 74 Miss. 567, 21 So. 233. Followed in Jayne v. Drake, 41 So. 372; Freeland v. Compton, 30 Miss. 424; New York Life Insurance Co. v. McIntosh, 86 Miss. 236, 28 So. 775; Addy v. Billups, 35 Miss. 618; Smith v. Natchez Steamboat Co., 1 H. 479.
J. The appellant, plaintiff in the court below, filed a declaration in a suit against the Superior Oil Company, the appellee here, for damages on account of breach of a contract entered into between the plaintiff, Meder, and the Superior Oil Company, by R. B. Royster, its secretary, treasurer, and manager, which contract reads as follows:
"For and in consideration of one dollar ($ 1) cash in hand paid the Superior Oil Company agrees to rent or lease to W. F. Meder the Service Station and Stores to be erected at the corner of Howard avenue and Main St., Biloxi, Miss. for the period of five (5) years and the option to renew for an additional five years, commencing June 1, 1927. The Superior Oil Company agreeing to use every effort to complete the building by June 1, 1927. The consideration for this option is that Lessee, W. F. Meder, agrees to pay to Superior Oil Company a monthly rental, payable monthly in advance, or one hundred twenty-five dollars, for the ground, plus eight per cent. on eight thousand dollars agreed to be spent upon the erection of said building. The building to consist of one Drive-in Service Station and two stores, one facing on Howard avenue, and one on Main street. This agreement holds until May 15th, when formal agreement will be made.
Witness our signatures this the 28th day of April, 1927.
Thereafter, on May 26, 1927, the appellee wrote the following letter to the appellant:
On receipt of this letter, the appellant had his attorney write the following letter to the appellee:
The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice under the general issue that he would prove the following facts: That at the time the option sued on was given by Mr. Royster, manager of the defendant company, it was understood and agreed between the two parties that Mr. Royster had to submit same to the directors of the defendant company for approval,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Capital Paint & Glass Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co
... ... Co. v. Nix, 93 So. 244, 129 Miss. 809; 7 R. C. L., page ... 590, sec. 581; Jackson v. I. C. R. R. Co., 76 Miss ... 607, 24 So. 874; Meder v. Superior Oil Co., 151 ... Miss. 814, 119 So. 318; Russell v. Palatine Ins ... Co., 106 Miss. 290, 63 So. 644; 14 R. C. L., page 871; 2 ... Am ... ...
-
Edwards v. Ellis, 55119
...may nonetheless be legally sufficient. See American Olean Tile Co. v. Morton, 247 Miss. 886, 157 So.2d 788 (1963); Meder v. Superior Oil Co., 151 Miss. 814, 119 So. 318 (1928); see also York v. Georgia-Pacific, 585 F.Supp. 1265 (N.D.Miss.1984). A contract found to be merely improvident will......
-
Tupelo Hotel Co. v. Long
... ... [126 So. 9] ... Company v. Nix, 129 Miss. 809, 93 So. 244; ... Metzger v. Southern Bank, 98 Miss. 108, [156 Miss ... 345] 54 So. 241; Meder v. Superior Oil Company, 151 ... Miss. 814, 119 So. 318. This last case is very much like the ... one involved here. Whatever the rule may be in ... ...