Noble v. Burney

• Citation: 53 S.E. 463,124 Ga. 960
• Parties: NOBLE et al. v. BURNEY.
• Decision Date: 19 February 1906
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

53 S.E. 463

124 Ga. 960

NOBLE et al. v. BURNEY.

Supreme Court of Georgia

February 19, 1906

Syllabus by the Court.

Proof that an agent has authority to receive payments of rent does not necessarily show that he is authorized to renew a lease of the rented property, but such fact is a circumstance that may throw light upon the extent of the agency when the right to renew the lease is in question.

When the issue is as to the authority of an agent to renew a lease, and there is evidence that the authority of the agent was at the time of the renewal the same as it was during the lifetime of the predecessor in title of the alleged lessor evidence as to the transaction of the alleged agent during the lifetime of the predecessor in title of the alleged lessor is admissible.

There was evidence authorizing an instruction to the jury on the subject of ratification of an unauthorized act of an agent.

The evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to authorize the verdict. If any of the rulings complained of were erroneous the error was not of such a character as to require the granting of a new trial.

Error from Superior Court, Floyd County; W. M. Henry, Judge.

Action by A. S. Burney against M. W. Noble and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Denny & Harris, for plaintiffs in error.

McHenry & Maddox, for defendant in error.

COBB P.J. (after stating the foregoing facts).

1. Error was assigned upon the admission of the testimony of the defendant that he had made payments of rent upon the premises in dispute by checks payable to M. D. McOsker, for the reason that it was immaterial to whom the defendant paid rent, as the issue was whether McOsker was authorized to make the contract of rent. We think this evidence was admissible. Proof that an agent has authority to receive payment of rent does not necessarily show that he is authorized to make a contract of rental, but it is a circumstance that the jury may consider in passing upon the issue, and throws light upon the relation in which the alleged agent stands to his principal. There was evidence that McOsker had, previously to February 1, 1902, asked the defendant if he wished to renew his contract of rental for the year following that date, and that the defendant had replied, "Yes." After this conversation, the defendant told McOsker he wished some repairs made in the building. In testifying to this conversation, the defendant added, "I did not care whether he did or did not do it." This testimony as to the state of defendant's mind at the time of the conversation was irrelevant. What he said to McOsker was pertinent. What he thought was immaterial. The evidence was inadmissible, but we do not think its admission was so harmful as to require the grant of a new trial.

2. Error was assigned upon the admission in evidence of a contract of rental between Mrs. Jenifer Noble, by her agent M. D. McOsker, and the Rome Light Guards, to a portion of the building in which the store in controversy was located, and also upon the admission of the testimony of Walter Harris that he had rented a portion of the same building during the life of Mrs. Noble, and after her death, when the property went to her daughters, the plaintiffs in this case, and that he had made the rent contracts with McOsker, and had paid the rents to him. Ordinarily any evidence tending to show McOsker's relation to Mrs. Jenifer Noble would be foreign to the issues in this case. But there was evidence from one of the plaintiffs to the effect that the relation between the plaintiffs and McOsker was the same as the relation between Mrs. Noble and McOsker. In view of this statement, we think the evidence objected to was admissible.

Error was assigned upon the action of the court in excluding a letter from the plaintiffs to McOsker, which was dated August 27, 1901, and contained a rejection of a proposal from certain parties to rent the premises in dispute, and a statement of the amount for which the plaintiffs would lease the building. It is contended that this letter was evidence of the fact that McOsker had no authority to rent the property of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs had retained complete control over their property. This letter amounted to nothing more than a declaration of a party in his own interest, and was properly excluded. The evidence of West who would have testified to what McOsker told him,...