Pacific Biscuit Co. v. Dugger

• Decision Date: 30 December 1901
• Citation: 67 P. 32,40 Or. 362
• Parties: PACIFIC BISCUIT CO. v. DUGGER.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

67 P. 32

40 Or. 362

PACIFIC BISCUIT CO. v. DUGGER.

Supreme Court of Oregon

December 30, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Linn county.

Action by the Pacific Biscuit Company against G.A. Dugger. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

A.M Cannon, for appellant.

D.R.N Blackburn, for respondent.

BEAN C.J.

This is an action to recover the value of goods, wares, and merchandise alleged to have been sold and delivered to the defendant. In March, 1899, the defendant purchased of her son a cigar and confectionery business in Independence, some miles distant from her home in Linn county. It was agreed that he should remain in general charge of the store as her agent, with authority to sell and dispose of the goods and replenish the stock as it might be necessary, but he was instructed not to buy on credit. In October, November, and December, 1899, he purchased on credit of the traveling salesman of the plaintiff and its assignors, who had no knowledge of his instructions, the merchandise mentioned in the complaint, which was received in the store, and either sold and disposed of by him in due course of business, or by the defendant a short time thereafter, when the stock was sold in bulk. Upon these facts, the single question presented is whether the defendant is liable for the goods so purchased by her son, and this depends upon whether he is to be regarded as a general or special agent. If his agency was special, the defendant is not liable, because he exceeded his authority; but, if general, his principal is bound notwithstanding he acted contrary to her instructions. A general agent is one authorized to transact all his principal's business, or all his business of some particular kind, while a special agent is one authorized to do one or more specific acts in pursuance of particular instructions, or within restrictions necessarily implied from the act to be done. 1 Am. & Eng.Enc.Law (2d Ed.) 985. Within these definitions, the defendant's son must be regarded as a general agent. The mere fact that his authority was confined to a particular business did not make him a special agent. He was given full charge and control of the business with power to sell and dispose of the stock and replenish it by purchasing new goods; and therefore his principal is liable for his acts, within the scope of his apparent authority, notwithstanding he may have disregarded his secret instructions. If a general agent disregards his instructions his acts will nevertheless be binding on his principal, so far as third persons who deal with him without notice are concerned, although he may be personally liable to his principal therefor. This rule has been...