R. T. Polk Cotton Co. v. Bethel
| Decision Date | 28 May 1923 |
| Docket Number | 23307 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | R. T. POLK COTTON CO. v. BETHEL |
(Division A.) January 1, 1920
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. No ratification without knowledge. Under the facts in case, held, that there was no ratification of the unauthorized acts of the agent by the principal, who had no full knowledge of the acts, and did not approve them expressly or im-pliedly.
APPEAL from circuit court of Panola county, HON. GREEK L. RICE Judge.
Suit by R. T. Polk Cotton Company against Jim Bethel. From the judgment rendered, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and judgment rendered.
Judgment reversed.
Dinkins & Buntin and Luther Manship, for appellant.
Geo. M. Johnson, for appellee.
[NOTE:--No briefs now on file for either side.]
The appellant cotton company sued appellee, Bethel, on an itemized account for six hundred dollars cash advanced on a shipment of four bales of cotton less certain credits which showed a balance due of four hundred and thirty-four dollars. The defendant below, appellee here, filed an offset for eight hundred and eighty-two dollars and recovered judgment over against the plaintiff in the sum of three hundred and fifteen dollars from which judgment the cotton company appeals.
The decisive point in the case is whether or not the cotton company ratified the alleged unauthorized act of its agent, Mr. Cullen, in agreeing that the cotton company would guarantee the sale of the four bales of cotton at not less than forty-two cents per pound, amounting in the aggregate to eight hundred and eighty-two dollars.
We have carefully reviewed the testimony in this record offered to show a ratification by the appellant cotton company of the unauthorized act of the agent, Cullen, in guaranteeing that the cotton would be sold at forty-two cents per pound, and we are of the opinion that it was insufficient to show ratification on the part of the cotton company.
We cannot see that it would be of any value to set out this testimony in detail, but deem it sufficient to say that at no time, by conversation, by letters, or by actions, did the cotton company acknowledge and approve the alleged act of its agent, who, it is conclusively shown, had no authority to make an agreement to guarantee the cotton would be sold for forty-two cents per pound or any other definite price.
The record does not show...
To continue reading
Request your trial