Rumbough v. Southern Imp. Co

• Decision Date: 02 May 1893
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: RUMBOUGH. v. SOUTHERN IMP. CO.

17 S.E. 536

112 N.C. 751

RUMBOUGH.

v.SOUTHERN IMP. CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 2, 1893.

Authority of Agents —Declarations as Evidence—Best and Secondary Evidence.

1. Declarations of the president of a company that its agent had authority to draw and accept a draft in its name, made after the alleged acceptance, are inadmissible to show the agent's authority, since the scope of authority of one agent as to a past transaction cannot be proved by the unsworn declaration of another agent.

2. Evidence of the contents of a letter to prove a contract is inadmissible where the letter itself is not produced, nor its loss satisfactorily accounted for.

Appeal from superior court, Madison county; W. A. Hoke, Judge.

Action by H. T. Rumbough against the Southern Improvement Company on a draft alleged to have been accepted by defendant. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

The same case, upon a former appeal, is reported in 109 N. C. 703, 14 S. E. Rep. 314. One of the issues submitted to the jury by the court was as follows: "Was W. E. Watkins authorized to draw and accept said bill of exchange for the defendant company?"

J. M. Gudger, F. A. Sondley, T. F. Davidson, and C. M. Busbee, for appellant.

W. W. Jones and H. T. Rumbough, for appellee.

BURWELL, J. The plaintiff's action is founded upon a draft drawn in his favor by W. E. Watkins for the sum of $950, and accepted by said Watkins in the name of the defendant corporation. It was necessary, to the establishment of his claim, that plaintiff should prove that Watkins had authority to bind the defendant inthis manner. In his effort to do this he was allowed, on the trial, notwithstanding the objection of defendant, to introduce the declarations of the president and general manager of defendant company, made after the alleged acceptance, to the effect that Watkins had authority so to contract for the defendant. This was not proper. Smith v. Railroad Co., 68 N. C. 107. It is there said that "the power to make declarations or admissions in behalf of a company, as to events or defaults that ha ve occurred and are past, cannot be inferred us incidental to the duties of a general agent to superintend the current dealings and business of the company. No such power is expressly given by the bylaws of defendant company, and a general power so unusual and so unnecessary in the ordinary business of a company must require a clear and distinct grant." In that case the declaration offered...