Watkins v. Huff
| Decision Date | 22 January 1924 |
| Docket Number | 12540. |
| Citation | 222 P. 693,101 Okla. 5,1924 OK 85 |
| Parties | WATKINS ET AL. v. HUFF ET AL. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The rights, duties, and functions of partners, in a great measure, comprehend those of agents, and the general rules of law applicable to agents apply with equal force to partners. Every partner is not only a principal, but also a general authorized agent for the firm, and the agent for all the partners for all purposes within the scope and objects of the partnership.
A contract will ordinarily bind a partnership when it is made by a partner within the apparent scope of his authority, and the person dealing with the partner has no knowledge that such partner intends it for his individual benefit, and is acting in violation of his obligations and duties to the firm.
Where a person seeking to charge a partnership is apprized that the transaction is not for or on account of the firm, or knows or has reason to believe, that the firm's credit is being pledged, or that payment is being made with partnership funds in satisfaction of an individual debt, the copartners not consenting thereto will not be bound thereby.
Where the record shows an erroneous instruction, which might and probably did mislead the jury, the giving of such instruction constitutes prejudicial error.
Appeal from District Court, Harmon County; Frank Mathews, Judge.
Action by A. J. Watkins and another, partners doing business under the firm name of the Auto Sales Company, against F. M. Huff and another, partners doing business under the firm name of Hollis Garage. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed, and remanded for new trial.
Geo. L Zink, of Hobart, for plaintiffs in error.
C. H Madden, of Hollis, for defendants in error.
This was an action by plaintiffs in error as plaintiffs below against the defendants in error defendants below, to recover the sum of $1,018.50, with interest, upon a check signed "Hollis Garage, by J. A. Hawke," drawn on the City National Bank of Hollis, payable to the order of "Auto Sales Co.," and given in payment for an automobile.
Summons was duly served on the defendant F. M. Huff, but the defendant J. A. Hawke was not found. Huff filed answer in which, after denying generally the allegations of plaintiff's petition, he averred that J. A. Hawke had no authority to issue the check made the basis of the action; that the defendants were only engaged in repairing automobiles and selling gasoline and oil, and were not dealers in automobiles; that the purchase of an automobile from the plaintiffs for the Hollis Garage was wholly without the scope of Hawke's authority, and was not binding upon Huff or the Hollis Garage; that the plaintiffs had due notice that the check would not be honored at the bank upon which it was drawn.
After a reply consisting of a general denial was filed, the case was tried to a jury, and a verdict returned in favor of the defendant Huff, upon which judgment was duly entered, and to review which the plaintiffs have appealed.
The facts about which there is no dispute are that F. M. Huff and J. A. Hawke were partners, doing business at Hollis, under the firm name of Hollis Garage; that, at the time such partnership was formed, J. A. Hawke had an order in with the plaintiffs for a Dodge car. Said car was received by him after the formation of the partnership and was paid for by the partnership. This car was by the defendants sold to one Clay Hall. After such partnership was formed, and on or about May 1, 1920, Hawke purchased of the plaintiffs another Dodge car, paying therefor with a check signed "Hollis Garage, by J. A. Hawke." This car was sold by the defendants to one John Aikens. Afterwards, and on or about June 29, 1920, Hawke purchased of the plaintiffs another Dodge car and paid for the same by delivering to the plaintiffs an old car and the check for $1,018.50 made the basis of this action.
At the time this check was given, neither of the plaintiffs had ever met the defendant Huff, but their business dealings with the Hollis Garage had been through Hawke. They had, prior to such time, sold supplies to the Hollis Garage which had on some occasions been sent C. O. D., and on others had been paid for with checks. In all these dealings with Hawke, checks had been given signed "Hollis Garage by J. A. Hawke."
C. R. Updyke, one of the plaintiffs, testified on cross-examination that he recognized the contract by which the car was purchased as being made with Hawke; that all his dealings and correspondence had been with Hawke; that, when Hawke came for the car, he told Updyke that the firm was paying for it, and gave the plaintiffs the check sued on; that Updyke asked Hawke if he had the money in the bank, and Hawke replied that he had made suitable arrangements with reference to taking care of the check.
Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial