Tuskegee Institute v. May Refrigeration Co., Inc.
Decision Date | 14 January 1977 |
Parties | In re TUSKEGEE INSTITUTE, a corporation, v. MAY REFRIGERATION COMPANY, INC., et al. Ex parte MAY REFRIGERATION COMPANY, INC. SC 1858. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Michael I. Kent, Opelika, for petitioner.
Fred D. Gray, Tuskegee, James Larry Lester, John S. Glenn, Opelika, for respondent.
May Refrigeration Company installed an air conditioning unit at Tuskegee Institute, but was never paid for it. Nevertheless, Tuskegee kept the unit and used it. May filed suit against Tuskegee and its agents. A jury awarded May $2,975 1 compensatory damages, and $3,500 punitive damages. Tuskegee appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to show that any employee of Tuskegee had actual or apparent authority to bind it. A fuller statement of the facts may be found in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals at 57 Ala.App. 344, 328 So.2d 598 (1976). We granted certiorari, primarily to review the question of ratification, an issue not addressed in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, but an issue which was presented in the case as is apparent from a reading of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. May did not request the Court of Civil Appeals, pursuant to Rule 39(k), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, on application for rehearing, to add or correct the facts in its opinion on rehearing. May, apparently thinking it should have made the request, asked this Court to suspend the Rule 39(k) requirement and permit it to raise the question of ratification here. Because we can determine from a reading of the facts which are set out in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals that ratification was, in fact, an issue, the motion to suspend was not necessary.
A look at the record for a better understanding of the facts shows that the pre-trial order, which controls 'the subsequent course of the action' (Rule 16, ARCP), reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
(Emphasis added).
We also find that the trial court charged the jury on the issue of ratification. Consequently, Tuskegee had the burden on appeal of showing show the jury verdict was prejudicial to it.
In view of the finding of fact by the Court of Civil Appeals that the evidence was insufficient to show that persons purported to act for Tuskegee had actual or apparent authority we think Tuskegee did show prejudice and we affirm the judgment of that court insofar as it reverses the jury award of $3,500 as punitive damages. However, Tuskegee has failed to show that the jury award of compensatory damages in the amount of $2,975, plus interest, is prejudicial; therefore, we reinstate the judgment of the trial court insofar as that portion of the judgment is concerned.
The Court of Civil Appeals cites City Stores Co. v. Williams, 287 Ala. 385, 252 So.2d 45 (1971), as follows:
In City Stores, the question was whether City Stores was doing business in Pike County. This Court said:
(Emphasis added).
It is apparent that this Court, in City Stores, recognized that if a principal has knowledge of acts performed on its behalf, even though unauthorized, then the principal can ratify those acts.
The Court of Civil appeals has failed to apply the principle of ratification to Count IV of the complaint.
As is set out in 3 Am.Jur.2d, Agency, § 175, pp. 560, 561:
(Emphasis added).
The Court of Civil appeals held:
Our review of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phillips v. Amoco Oil Co.
...Institute v. May Refrigeration Co., Inc., 57 Ala.App. 344, 328 So.2d 598 (1976), affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds 344 So.2d 156 (Ala.1977). Accord, Girard v. 94th St. & Fifth Ave. Corp., 530 F.2d 66 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied 425 U.S. 974, 96 S.Ct. 2173, 48 L.Ed.2d 798 (......
-
Grant v. Wesfam Rests., Inc.
...Tuskegee Institute v. May Refrigeration Co., 57 Ala. App. 344, 328 So. 2d 598 (1976), affirmed in part and reversed in part, 344 So. 2d 156 (Ala.1977)." ...
-
Holmes v. Sanders
...In Alabama, "[i]t is the law that one may ratify the acts of another not done in the name of the former." Tuskegee Institute v. May Refrigeration Co., 344 So.2d 156, 159 (Ala.1977). Specifically, this Court has recognized before that where a party accepts "with full knowledge of the facts, ......
-
City of Montgomery v. Collins
...made a party defendant in such an action, Jackson v. City of Florence, 294 Ala. 592, 320 So.2d 68 (1975); Tuskegee Institute v. May Refrigeration Co., Inc., 344 So.2d 156 (Ala.1977), it would be within the reasonable scope of "proper corporate interest" for the municipality to attempt to pr......