Skelly Oil Co. v. Mccrory

• Decision Date: 27 November 1923
• Docket Number: Case Number: 12514
• Citation: 1923 OK 1053,221 P. 709,94 Okla. 232
• Parties: SKELLY OIL CO. v. PRUITT & McCRORY.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1923 OK 1053

221 P. 709

94 Okla. 232

SKELLY OIL CO. v. PRUITT & McCRORY.

Case Number: 12514

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: November 27, 1923

Syllabus

¶0 1. Principal and Agent -- Binding Effect of Acts--Scope of Agency.

The acts of the agent can only bind the principal within the scope of his express or implied power.

2. Same--Implied Powers.

The implied powers flow from a grant of expressed powers and are those powers necessary or incidental to the exercise of the express powers.

3. Same--Purchase of Real Estate--Power to Employ Broker.

The employment of a broker by the agent to assist him in the purchase of real estate is not necessary or incidental to the exercise of the express grant of power to purchase real estate for his principal.

4. Same--Proof of Agency--Declaration of Agent.

Statements and declarations by the agent, standing alone, in the absence of his principal, are not sufficient to prove the relation of principal and agent, and to establish the authority of the latter to act in some particular instance.

5. Same--Ratification of Acts--Employment of Broker.

If the agent, without the authority of his principal, employs a broker to assist him to purchase real estate for his principal, the acceptance of the conveyance with knowledge of the unauthorized acts of his agent and knowledge of the assistance rendered his agent by the stranger or volunteer will not operate as a ratification by the principal of the unauthorized act of his agent.

6. Appeal and Error--Review--Insufficiency of Evidence of Agency.

If the verdict of the jury rests entirely on the statements and declarations of the agent, in the absence of his principal, as to his power to act and bind his principal in the proceedings involved in the suit, there is no competent testimony to support the judgment, and it will be reversed on appeal.

7. Same.

Record examined, and found to contain only the statements and declarations of the agent as to the power of the latter to act; held, there is no competent evidence to support the verdict of the jury.

W. P. Z. German, Alvin F. Molony, and Cliff V. Peery, for plaintiff in error.

Dolman & Dyer, for defendants in error.

STEPHENSON, C.

¶1 In the trial of this cause the jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs. The defendant brings error and seeks reversal principally on the ground of insufficiency of the testimony to support the verdict of the jury. The defendant sent B. V. Emory, one of its employees, to Carter county to prepare a lease for the drilling of a well. It appears that the defendant instructed the agent to interview a man by the name of Wallace, who owned a lease in the vicinity of the holdings of the defendant, for the purpose of ascertaining what the lease could be purchased for. According to the testimony of the plaintiffs, Emory enlisted the aid of the plaintiffs, who were real estate agents, to assist him in the negotiations. The plaintiffs testified that the agent called the president of the defendant company over the telephone from their office and stated to the president of the company that the lease could be purchased for $ 3,000 per acre, and that certain brokers were interested in the sale who would require compensation. The plaintiffs further testified that the agent advised he would allow them, or pay to them, a commission of five per cent. for their services. According to the testimony of the plaintiffs, the sale was finally arranged for $ 3,000 per acre net, to Wallace, and the defendant completed the purchase for the sum named. On cross-examination the plaintiffs admitted requesting the seller to pay them a commission, who refused, and stated to plaintiffs that he would not sell for less than $ 3,000 per acre net. Skelly, who was president of the defendant company, testified that Emory was only authorized to ascertain the sum of money the lease could be purchased for and submit the proposition to him. The president of the company further testified that when Emory informed him that brokers were interested in the sale that he advised his agents that he would not pay a commission to any broker, and that he would not pay to exceed $ 3,000 per acre net for the lease. The witness testified that Emory was not authorized by the defendant to employ brokers to assist him in the purchase. The defendants in error endeavor to sustain judgment on the following grounds: (a) That the evidence was sufficient to submit the question of agency to the jury; (b) that the defendant knew of the services performed by the plaintiffs in connection with the purchase, prior to the time the defendant received the conveyance. The only testimony tending to establish the authority of Emory to employ brokers is the evidence of the plaintiffs as to declaration made in their presence by Emory. The agent can only bind the principal when acting within the scope or apparent scope of his authority, and is only authorized to exercise the express or implied powers granted to him by the principal. Howe v. Martin, 23 Okla. 561, 102 P. 128, 138 A. S. R....