Rca Victor Company, Inc. v. Daugherty
| Decision Date | 07 October 1935 |
| Docket Number | 4-3967 |
| Parties | RCA VICTOR COMPANY, INC., v. DAUGHERTY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court; W. D. Davenport, Judge affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Moore & Burke and G. D. Walker, for appellant.
W G. Dinning, for appellee.
The appellee, Evelyn W. Daugherty, was the owner of a picture show house in West Helena, and R. L. Brooks, her brother-in-law, who was managing her affairs there, entered into a contract with A. A. Hughes, representing the R. C. A Victor Company, Inc., for the lease of motion picture sound producing equipment for use in the said theatre. This theatre equipment was already in place in the building at the time the contract was made.
There is a sharp dispute between testimony offered in behalf of appellant, and that offered in behalf of the appellee about the contract, but all parties agree upon certain facts.
Appellee was to pay $ 100 in cash, and to pay $ 17.50 per week, which payments appellant claims were to continue over a period of 156 weeks, but the appellee contended that they were to continue for 104 weeks.
A. A. Hughes, agent for the appellant, had authority to prepare a contract, secure the signature of his customer, and forward the same for approval or acceptance to the main office of the appellant company. In this case Hughes and Brooks each say that the contract was agreed upon in Brooks' office, in the presence, however, of one or two other persons; that, after they had agreed upon terms, conditions, etc., Brooks called the appellee, Mrs. Daugherty, at Memphis, and advised her of the fact that they had agreed upon a contract, and that it would be presented to her by Hughes for her signature, and requesting her to sign same when presented. A short time thereafter, perhaps on the same day, Hughes presented the contract to Mrs. Daugherty at Memphis, who, together with her husband, went with Hughes to a notary public, before whom she signed and acknowledged the same. The $ 100 payment had already been collected from Brooks.
The evidence is not wholly undisputed that Mrs. Daugherty signed the contract without personal investigation, and at the same time signed a note presented to her by Hughes, and these papers were sent to the appellant company for approval.
Shortly after the execution of the contract, appellee was in default and admits that she continued in default until the time of the institution of this suit.
In fact, two suits were brought, but these were later consolidated and tried together. The first suit was a suit in replevin to recover the theatre equipment involved, and the second was to recover the balance alleged to be due upon the note.
If, in consideration of this case, we confine ourselves strictly to the written pleadings, a situation somewhat confusing arises. In defense of the suit, Mrs. Daugherty pleaded that the defendant company, by its agent, Hughes, fraudulently changed the contract after it had been agreed upon as between Brooks and Hughes, and before it was presented to her at Memphis, Tennessee, so that, upon its execution by her, it appeared upon its face to be a contract binding her to make payment for 156 weeks, or three years, instead of 104 weeks, or two years. She alleged that, by reason of said fraudulent conduct in so changing the contract after Brooks had telephoned her to sign the instrument that would be presented by Hughes, the said contract, as sued upon, was void and not binding upon her. She did not, however, offer to rescind the contract, or to return the property delivered to her on account thereof, but on the other hand she executed a retaining bond, in the replevin suit, to hold and keep in her custody the property. Her answer or pleadings in both of the suits were substantially to the same effect.
After the consolidation of the two causes, in fact, at the time of the submission to the jury, the trial court, by an announcement, simplified the issues. This announcement was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abel of Ark., Inc. v. Richards
...was outside the scope of the pleadings, the answer will be treated as having been amended to conform.' See also R.C.A. Victor Co., Inc., v. Daugherty, 191 Ark. 401, 85 S.W.2d 559. There was likewise testimony under which the jury could have found that appellant company was not in sufficient......
-
Fairbanks-Morse & Company v. Hogan
... ... [10]Barnes v. Hope Basket ... Co., 186 Ark. 942, 56 S.W.2d 1014; R. C. A. Victor ... Hope Basket ... Co., 186 Ark. 942, 56 S.W.2d 1014; R. C. A. Victor ... Co. v. Daugherty ... ...
-
Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Hogan
...v. White, 182 Ark. 1014, 33 S.W.2d 365. 10. Barnes v. Hope Basket Co., 186 Ark. 942, 56 S.W.2d 1014; R. C. A. Victor Co. v. Daugherty, 191 Ark. 401, 86 S.W.2d...
-
R. C. A. Victor Co. v. Daugherty
...86 S.W.2d 559 ... R. C. A. VICTOR CO., Inc"., ... DAUGHERTY ... No. 4-3967 ... Supreme Court of Arkansas ... October 7, 1935 ... As Amended on Denial of Rehearing November 4, 1935 ... \xC2" Appeal from Circuit Court, Phillips County; W. D. Davenport, Judge ... Suit by the R. C. A. Victor Company, Inc., against Evelyn W. Daugherty. From a judgment for the defendant, the plaintiff appeals ... Affirmed ... Moore ... ...