Neimeyer Lumber Co. v. Moore
| Decision Date | 12 December 1891 |
| Citation | 17 S.W. 1028 |
| Parties | NEIMEYER LUMBER CO. v. MOORE. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Lafayette county; CHARLES E. MITCHELL, Judge.
Action by the Neimeyer Lumber Company against Henry Moore for goods sold. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
L. A. Byrne, for appellant. Montgomery & Moore, for appellee.
The appellant sold goods on the credit of the appellee, upon orders given by one Alford. Whether the appellee was bound for the purchases was the question in the case below. It was insisted for the appellant, in the first place, that Alford had authority to make the purchases; and, in the second place, that the principal had ratified the purchases, even if they were unauthorized. The verdict of the jury is a finding against the appellant upon the first point, and our attention has been directed to no error in the court's charge on that branch of the case. The verdict upon that issue was supported by sufficient evidence, and we find as to it no cause for reversal.
Upon the question of ratification, the uncontradicted proof was that the goods were delivered to hands at the mill of the appellee upon orders given by Alford, who charged to the hands the purchase price of the goods bought, and deducted it from the amounts due them for their labor. That pay-rolls were periodically made out by Alford, and delivered to the appellee, upon which the hands were severally credited by the amounts due them for wages, and charged with the amounts due from them for supplies, which latter amounts included the goods for which appellant seeks to hold appellee liable; that the appellee settled with the hands, sometimes in person and sometimes by agent, and paid them the balance shown due upon the pay-rolls, after deducting charges made for supplies advanced. The appellee had notified the appellant that Alford was authorized to purchase goods on his account in a small sum not to exceed $25, and that his authority extended no further. The pay-rolls disclosed the fact that the mill hands were charged with, and the appellee credited by, large sums for supplies which it does not appear that the appellee was warranted in believing was on account of goods provided by himself. Upon this state of case, the appellant asked but the court declined to charge the jury as follows: "If the jury finds from the evidence that defendant, Henry Moore, was to pay the running expenses of the mill run by Alford, including the pay-rolls of the laborers, giving said Alford authority to contract for same; and that he (said Moore) was to pay such expenses upon the estimate of said Alford; and that, as part of said expenses, said Alford made the account with the Neimeyer Lumber Company, all of which was computed in, and became a part of, the pay-roll, and other expenses of the mill; and said Moore got the benefit of such accounts in the amounts he had to pay, — then your verdict should be for the plaintiff as to the amount of such account." It is, of course,...
To continue reading
Request your trial