National Cash Register Co. v. Giffin
| Decision Date | 09 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | 34881. |
| Citation | 192 Miss. 556,6 So.2d 605 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO. v. GIFFIN. |
McFarland & Holmes, of Aberdeen, and Rodgers & Prisock, of Louisville, for appellant.
W A. Strong, Jr., of Louisville, for appellee.
On June 7, 1939, appellee, by written contract, agreed to purchase from appellant a cash register, the seller to retain title thereto, with right to repossess it upon default in payment by appellee, until the purchase price should be fully paid. On July 15, 1939, the register was delivered; appellee paid $15 cash and executed a promissory note for the balance of the purchase price, payable in monthly installments.
In February, 1940, no further payment having been made appellant brought this action to recover a personal judgment for the unpaid purchase price and for seizure and sale of the register and credit of the proceeds of the sale on the judgment.
Appellee in addition to the general issue, filed a special plea "* * * that the defendant compromised and settled this case with an authorized agent of the plaintiff whereby plaintiff was to receive the cash register and all payments made thereon by the defendant in consideration of releasing defendant from any liability on this contract."
Appellant denied such agency, compromise and settlement.
At the close of the trial the lower court directed a verdict for the defendant on the theory that the proof offered by him established his release from liability for the unpaid purchase price.
This appeal presents a number of questions but it is necessary that we consider only two of them.
One is the contention of appellant that appellee was erroneously permitted to establish the fact of agency and the authority of the supposed agent by the statements of the agent.
The question arises under these circumstances: Appellee testified that after the delivery of the register he was dissatisfied with it and so verbally informed one Hayes, who delivered it to him; that Hayes said he had no authority to adjust any such matter and suggested he write appellant, which he did, and that he received in reply a letter, written on the stationery of appellant, saying, in substance, it did not want dissatisfied customers, and would notify "their representative in Mississippi" to call upon him and settle the matter; that he thought the letter was signed by one Lowden, or Lowder, and "it seems he was treasurer of the company"; that some two to three months thereafter Hayes appeared and said the company had sent him, and he and Hayes then orally agreed that Hayes would take up the register and release appellee from further liability on the debt, and appellee would lose the fifteen dollars he had paid on the price; that Hayes woud try to dispose of the register locally and until then it could remain at his place of business, where it was when this action was instituted. He did not produce a copy of his letter nor the original of the one he claimed to have received. He said he had lost the original letter.
It is not contended that Hayes had in his possession the purchase contract and the note. Nothing was said of their delivery to Giffin nor of the satisfaction of the recorded contract.
On the other hand, the proof shows, without contradiction, that one Williams had a contract with appellant vesting in Williams the right to sell cash registers in this territory, and that Hayes was his employee; he paid Hayes; Hayes had no connection whatever with appellant, and at the time of the trial was not working for Williams; that the officer of appellant who had authority to settle controversies of this nature was the secretary of the company; that the treasurer had no authority in this respect whatever, and that Lowden, the person named by appellee as the one he thought wrote him the letter, and who had made affidavit to the account exhibited to the declaration, was the assistant treasurer, who had no authority to authorize any one to release appellee from his obligation, and that all settlements of disputes in the territory of Mr. Williams had to come, and be made, through him and his agency.
It will be noted that the supposed letter from appellant did not mention the name of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thorp Finance Corp. v. Tindle, 42944
...203 Miss. 833, 33 So.2d 451; Stilley v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 209 Miss. 414, 47 So.2d 840; and National Cash Register Company v. Giffin, 192 Miss. 556, 6 So.2d 605; it has been pointed out in an action by a seller to recover an unpaid purchase price, that the burden of proof wa......
-
Mississippi Butane Gas System Co. v. Glisson
... ... Co. v. Moody, 189 Miss. 628, 198 So. 440; National ... Cash Register Co. v. Giffin, 192 Miss. 556, 6 So.2d 605 ... This ... ...
-
JW Sanders Cotton Mill v. Capps
...of the agent, the defense fails. Nor does authority to make a contract imply authority to cancel it." See also National Cash Register Co. v. Giffin, 192 Miss. 556, 6 So.2d 605; Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. T. J. Phillips & Sons, 117 Miss. 204, 78 So. By comparison, the strength of the insta......
-
Cue Oil Co. v. Fornea Oil Co., 37450
...Co. v. Faulk, 118 Miss. 894, 80 So. 340. The burden is on the claimant to show the authority of the agent. National Cash Register Co. v. Giffin, 192 Misc. 556, 6 So.2d 605; McCaskey Register Co. v. Swor, 154 Miss. 396, 122 So. 489, 753. It is further elemental that such authority may not be......