Western Industrial Co. v. Chandler
| Decision Date | 16 May 1895 |
| Parties | WESTERN INDUSTRIAL CO. v. CHANDLER. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Archer county court; A. Llewellyn, Judge.
Action by J. J. Chandler against the Western Industrial Company and another to recover commissions for selling land as agent of the former. From a judgment against the Western Industrial Company, it appeals. Reversed.
Bomar & Bomar, for appellant.
On April 11, 1893, the appellee brought this suit against the appellant, a corporation, and against one Tillman Graham. He sought a recovery of $224, as commissions earned by him in selling land for the Western Industrial Company as agent. He relied upon an employment by the company through Tillman Graham, alleged to be authorized as the agent of the company to employ him for that purpose. The plaintiff prevailed in the trial court against the appellant, but not against its codefendant, Graham. From this judgment the corporation appeals.
Several special instructions requested by the plaintiff were granted. All special instructions requested by the defendant were refused. The second special instruction granted at the request of the plaintiff was one to the effect that if the jury "find from the evidence that the defendant Tillman Graham was the agent for the Western Industrial Co., and authorized to make the contract for it which the plaintiff sues upon; and if they further find that Graham, for the Western Industrial Co., promised to pay plaintiff the sum of $224 as commissions for making sale of certain land belonging to it, and that the plaintiff made the sale of said land, and that he did everything on his part to carry out the sale,—the jury are instructed that he is entitled to judgment against the company, although the sale was not completed, on account of failure of title to the land." This instruction submits to the jury the issue of original authority on the part of Graham to employ the plaintiff in the name of the company, and so to bind it, in the matter of selling its land. The only evidence looking in this direction is the statement by the plaintiff to the effect that Graham claimed to be thus empowered. Authority on the part of an alleged agent cannot be established by showing that the alleged agent claims to have the powers which he assumes to exercise. Mechem, Ag. § 100. The court, in other special charges, submitted, in effect, the issue of estoppel as against the appellant, growing out of the apparent authority of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental Oil Co. v. Baxter
...App.) 49 S. W. 518; Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co. v. Collin County Nat. Bank, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 477, 43 S. W. 831; Western Industrial Co. v. Chandler (Tex. Civ. App.) 31 S. W. 314; Rail v. City National Bank, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 22 S. W. 865; Garrow et al. v. Texas & N. O. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) ......
- R. O. Kipp Co. v. Anglin
-
Madeley v. Kellam
...Powell, 78 S. W. 997; Buzard v. Jolley (Sup.) 6 S. W. 422; Cooper & Co. v. Sawyer, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 620, 73 S. W. 992; Western Industrial Co. v. Chandler, 31 S. W. 314; Latham v. Pledger, 11 Tex. The witness Bass, as well as Vanlandingham and C. H. Kellam, were all permitted to testify, ov......
- Stephens v. Allen