Scarritt-Comstock Furniture Co. v. Hudspeth

• Decision Date: 05 September 1907
• Citation: Scarritt-Comstock Furniture Co. v. Hudspeth, 91 P. 843, 1907 OK 130, 19 Okla. 429 (Okla. 1907)
• Parties: SCARRITT-COMSTOCK FURNITURE CO. v. HUDSPETH.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

91 P. 843

19 Okla. 429, 1907 OK 130

SCARRITT-COMSTOCK FURNITURE CO. v. HUDSPETH.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

September 5, 1907

Syllabus by the Court.

Authority to an agent to sell goods does not of itself and alone apparently give to the agent authority to collect pay for the goods thus sold.

[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 40, Principal and Agent, § 301.]

Where a traveling salesman sells goods by sample or from catalogues and price lists, sending the orders to his principal to be filled, the presumption is that such agent has not the authority to collect for such goods; and where a purchaser subsequent to the date of ordering goods through such an agent, makes payments thereon to him, he does so at his peril, and in litigation for the value of the goods, the authority of the agent to make such collections being denied by his principal, the burden is on the purchaser to prove that the agent had such authority; and where the court instructs that such purchaser should be given credit for all payments made to such agent, unless he had notice or knowledge of the fact that such agent had no authority to collect for goods so sold, and judgment is rendered charging such payments to the seller, it will be presumed that the erroneous instructions operated to the prejudice of the seller, and a new trial should be granted by reason thereof.

[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 40, Principal and Agent, § 397.]

Authority to an agent to sell goods does not carry with it authority to compromise differences which may arise between his principal and those to whom he sells goods, by reason of the goods not coming up to the standard represented; and, where a purchaser relies upon a compromise with such an agent, the burden is on him to establish the agent's authority (if such fact be in dispute) to effect compromises in such cases.

[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 40, Principal and Agent, § 326.]

Error from District Court, Canadian County; before Justice Clinton F. Irwin.

Action by the Scarritt-Comstock Furniture Company against John C. Hudspeth. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded.

Blake, Blake & Low, for plaintiff in error.

Joseph G. Lowe and W. T. Beeks, for defendant in error.

BURWELL J.

One George B. Barron, as the traveling salesman for the Scarritt-Comstock Furniture Company, sold a bill of goods to John C. Hudspeth amounting in all to $645.87, consisting of chairs, centertables, dressers, bedsteads, mattresses, and other household furniture. The bill of goods was sold from price lists and catalogue which showed pictures or cuts of the articles ordered. When the goods were received, it was found that the wholesale house had made certain substitutions where the patterns ordered were out of stock, and Hudspeth claimed that the goods were not of the quality ordered. Complaint was made to the house, and Hudspeth alleges that a settlement was made with the salesman, Barron, whereby the appellant was to knock off 25 per cent. of the price, and also that he had paid Barron on the goods subsequent to the sale, in all, $160 on the account, and for which he held Barron's receipt. The appellant denied the receipt of this money by Barron, and also denied his authority to compromise the matter with Hudspeth.

On the question of presumption regarding the authority of the agent Barron, to receive the money, the court instructed as follows: "The jury are instructed that if they believe from the evidence that the George B. Barron mentioned in evidence came to El Reno as the agent of the Scarritt-Comstock Furniture Company, and as such agent made the sale of the furniture mentioned in evidence, then the defendant will be entitled to credit on the account for any payments that he had made to said Geo. B. Barron as the agent of said company on said furniture, unless the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant had notice of the fact, or had knowledge that the said Geo. B. Barron was not authorized to collect for said company for said furniture, or that the circumstances and surroundings of such payment were such as to have given the defendant notice of the fact that said Barron had no authority to collect." The instruction, in effect, tells the jury that if George B. Barron,...