Webster v. Wray

• Decision Date: 07 July 1885
• Citation: 24 N.W. 207,17 Neb. 579
• Parties: E. D. WEBSTER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. J. T. WRAY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

24 N.W. 207

17 Neb. 579

E. D. WEBSTER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. J. T. WRAY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Supreme Court of Nebraska

July 7, 1885

ERROR to the district court of Hitchcock county. Tried below before GASLIN, J.

AFFIRMED.

Marquett Deweese & Hall, for plaintiff in error.

J Byron Jennings, for defendant in error.

OPINION

MAXWELL, J.

This is an action to recover against E. D. Webster upon certain contracts for the payment of money made by his son, Thomas B Webster. There are four of these contracts which are set out in the petition, together with an allegation after each one of them, in substance that Thomas B. Webster had full authority to contract said debt, and that it was contracted for the benefit of E. D. Webster. The answer is a general denial. The jury in the court below returned a verdict in favor of Wray and against E. D. and Thomas Webster for $ 254.02, upon which judgment was rendered. The ground upon which a recovery is sought against E. D. Webster is, that he had authorized Thomas B. Webster, his son, to contract debts and borrow money in his own name for his father, in connection with the business in which they were engaged. The petition is very long and somewhat diffuse, and on reading it the first time the writer was inclined to adopt the views of the plaintiff in error, that it failed to state a cause of action against E. D. Webster. A more careful reading however, shows its purpose, and aided by the liberal rules of construction of the code, it is sufficient to sustain a verdict. The testimony tends to show that in the year 1876 E. D. Webster purchased a herd of cattle and placed them on his ranch on the Stinking Water. One witness stated, "It was called Webster's Ranch, the Quarter Circle W Ranch." The ranch and herd were in the care of Thomas B., the son, and the herd was registered in his name, and seems to have been so registered when this action was tried. The son was to have a fifth interest in the profits of the herd, the father apparently to pay all expenses. The son bought and sold stock with the father's knowledge, and without objection; contracted debts, which the father paid without complaint, and generally did all things necessary in the management and control of the herd. In the spring of 1881 it is claimed that the authority of the son was revoked, but the proof fails to show that any notice of this fact was given, either generally or specially. The only testimony upon that point being that of E. D. Webster, who testifies that, "In April, '81, I sent White out here to look up matters, and see...