Pilcher & Dillon v. Smith
| Decision Date | 22 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | 14266. |
| Citation | 121 S.E. 701,31 Ga.App. 606 |
| Parties | PILCHER & DILLON v. SMITH. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a cotton factor violates instructions from his principal to sell cotton belonging to the principal, the failure of the principal to repudiate the acts of the agent within a reasonable time after knowledge thereof amounts to a ratification of the agent's act in failing to sell as instructed.
A witness may testify as to the state of the market in a particular locality respecting a certain commodity during a certain period, when his knowledge is derived solely from the receipt of daily market quotations of the locality during that period. Central Railroad & Banking Co. v Skellie, 86 Ga. 686, 12 S.E. 1017.
Error from Superior Court, Warren County; Miles W. Lewis, Judge pro hac.
Suit by Pilcher & Dillon against C. M. Smith. Judgment for defendant and plaintiffs bring error. Reversed.
Pilcher & Dillon brought suit against C. M. Smith to recover an amount alleged to be due for certain advances made to him by the plaintiffs upon his cotton in their possession as cotton factors. The plaintiffs credited the account with the amount realized from the sale of the cotton, which was less than the amount advanced to the defendant, and brought suit for the balance. The defendant denied the indebtedness, and alleged that on a certain date when the market in Augusta, where the cotton was located, had reached 46 cents per pound, he notified the plaintiffs to sell his cotton if they could do so for 45 cents per pound; that his cotton at the time would have brought 45 cents per pound, but the plaintiffs failed to sell it as instructed. The defendant filed a counterclaim alleging that the plaintiffs had violated his instructions to sell the cotton, to his damage in the amount of the difference between 45 cents per pound, the price which the cotton would have brought had it been sold as per his instructions, and 15 cents per pound, the price at which the cotton was afterwards sold. The plaintiffs filed an amendment or replication, to the effect that the defendant afterwards when the same grade of cotton had declined to 21 cents per pound, agreed to place with the plaintiffs sufficient money to cover advances which they made to him, and that by reason of such conduct the defendant, who inferentially knew that the plaintiffs had not sold the cotton, was estopped from defending or claiming damages upon the ground that they had violated his instructions to sell the cotton at 45 cents per pound. There was evidence in support of the facts alleged in the plaintiffs' replication. There was evidence that the defendant was notified by the plaintiffs that he had not sold the cotton and that the defendant failed to disaffirm their act in thus disobeying the instructions, but promised to cover the advances by a payment of money to them. The court refused, on request, to instruct the jury that such conduct upon the part of the defendant constituted an estoppel, but instructed them that it would not amount to an estoppel as a matter of law, but that the jury could consider it, together with other evidence, in passing upon the question as to whether or not instructions were given to sell the cotton at 45 cents per pound. The jury found for the defendant damages in a certain sum. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, and therein excepted to the charge given by the court and to the court's refusal to charge as requested, and also objected to the exclusion of certain testimony as to the state of the market in...
To continue reading
Request your trial