Smith v. James
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Waggoner (Ark. 1929)
- Trippett v. Nash McLarty Motor Co. (Tex. App. 1925)
- Fillaus v. Greenfield (S.D. 1917)
- Miller v. Springfield Wagon Co. (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory 1905)
- Bank of Hoxie v. Hadley Milling Co. (Ark. 1915)
- Briggs v. Collins (Ark. 1914)
- Grooms v. Neff Harness Co. (Ark. 1906)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
An agent, with power to sell and receive money in payment for his principal, has not the apparent authority to accept a cancellation of his own debt due to a vendee who knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence could know, that his debtor is acting as agent; because he knows that the benefit of the sale will inure to the agent only — a result inconsistent with the agency. Arnett v. Glenn, 52 Ark., 253; Story on Agency, sec. 77; Belton Company v. Belton Manufacturing Co., 64 Tex., 337; Williams v. Johnston, 92 N. C., 532.
The court found only that James did not know the terms of the agency, and declared upon that, that his title was superior to the principal’s. That was error. It was only necessary that James should know that the person with whom he dealt was an agent, in order to be apprised that the transaction was beyond the scope of his authority.
Reverse and remand.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.