Steen v. Andrews
| Decision Date | 28 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 39574,39574 |
| Citation | 78 So.2d 881,223 Miss. 694 |
| Parties | James R. STEEN et al. v. G. S. ANDREWS, d/b/a Andrews Motor Company. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
John W. Crisler, Clarksdale, for appellants.
Stovall Lowery, Clarksdale, for appellee.
This case involves the question of whether the manager of a used car lot, which was owned by a nonresident of the state, had the power to bind the owner in accepting surrender of an automobile in full satisfaction of a note given by purchaser as part of the purchase price. The facts are practically without dispute. Andrews lived in Memphis; he owned and operated a used car sales lot in Coahoma County, Mississippi. Gunn was general manager of the Mississippi used car lot. As between Andrews and his general manager, Gunn, the latter did not have authority to accept surrender of cars previously sold in satisfaction of the balance of the purchase price without previous approval of Andrews. No such approval was given in connection with the hereinafter mentioned transaction.
Appellant Steen, not knowing of any limitation on the authority of Gunn, purchased an automobile from appellee's Mississippi used car lot on December 29, 1952. Appellant paid $200 in cash, gave appellee an open note for $139, due March 15, 1953, and executed a conditional sales agreement for $987, due in 21 monthly payments of $47 each. Gunn handled all phases of this transaction for appellee. Steen did not know Andrews. Appellee sold the $987 conditional sales contract to Murdock Acceptance Corporation of Memphis.
A few days after Steen purchased the automobile the motor knocked and he requested Gunn to have the motor repaired. Several times Steen took the car to Andrews Motor Company in an effort to get Gunn to repair the motor. Gunn, finally, on February 11, 1953, told Steen that he was not going to do anything about the car. Steen then delivered to Gunn, general manager of Andrews Motor Company, the automobile and keys and all the papers in connection with the transaction, and Gunn told Steen that the delivery of the automobile settled all debts due thereon. A short time later, Steen received through the mail the conditional sales contract from Murdock Acceptance Corporation, and that corporation made no further claim against Steen. About a year later, Andrews brought this suit on the $139 note. Gunn was dead when the suit was filed. What Andrews Motor Company did with the car after its delivery to Gunn at the Andrews Motor Company place of business is not disclosed, but appellee does not contend that the automobile was ever returned or tendered to appellant.
When Andrews put Gunn in full charge of the used car lot as general manager, with authority to conduct the business of selling automobiles to the public, the owner thereby clothed his agent, Gunn, with authority, as far as third persons were concerned, to handle transactions in reference to the sale of such automobiles and matters arising incident to such sales, such as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrew Jackson Life Ins. Co. v. Williams
...(Miss.1983) (Robertson, J., specially concurring). These principles are based upon the doctrine of estoppel. Steen v. Andrews, 223 Miss. 694, 697-98, 78 So.2d 881, 883 (1955). b. An Agent's Scope of An agent's authority may be actual, or it may be apparent. If an agent had apparent authorit......
-
Dixie Ins. Co. v. Mooneyhan
...and 3) a detrimental change in position. Gulf Guaranty Life v. Middleton, 361 So.2d 1377, 1383 (Miss.1978); Steen v. Andrews, 223 Miss. 694, 697-98, 78 So.2d 881, 883 (1955). Apparent authority exists when a reasonably prudent person, having knowledge of the nature and usages of the busines......
-
Delta Chemical and Petroleum, Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Byhalia
...concerned, the apparent powers of an agent are his real powers. Andrew Jackson, 566 So.2d at 1180-81 (citing Steen v. Andrews, 223 Miss. 694, 697-98, 78 So.2d 881, 883 (1955) (quoting Gulf Guar. Life Ins. Co. v. Middleton, 361 So.2d 1377, 1383 (Miss.1978); McPherson, 221 So.2d at ¶ 38. As w......
-
Johnson v. Rao
...the general laws of agency and stated: A general statement of the rule governing apparent authority is found in Steen v. Andrews, 223 Miss. 694, 78 So.2d 881 (1955), recently cited with approval in Union Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Mabus, 217 So.2d 23 The power of an agent to bind his princ......