Emmett v. Astoria Marine Iron Works
Emmett v. Astoria Marine Iron Works
Opinion of the Court
The assignments of error challenge the rulings of the trial court in refusing to give to the jury four requested instructions.
“If you find from the evidence that Mr. Yiggers told the plaintiff that he had authority to purchase the goods, and you further find from the evidence that Mr. Yiggers did not have such authority, yet this fact in itself would not make the defendant liable. It is the law that an agent may be personally liable for his acts, when he does something beyond his authority, but that would not make the firm with which he was connected liable for his acts. In this case Mr. Yiggers might be personally liable to the plaintiff, if he told the plaintiff he had authority to purchase the goods, and you further find that he did not have such authority, yet the Astoria Marine Iron Works would not be liable under such a set of facts.”
This statement, while somewhat vague and uncertain in its phrasing, contains a partial statement of the law; but it disregards the fact that it is alleged in plaintiff’s reply, and that there was evidence submitted to the jury, tending to prove that the defendant corporation had accepted the goods, had exercised acts of ownership thereof, and had actually used at least a portion of the goods in its business. This evi
Finding no substantial error in the récord, the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- EMMETT v. ASTORIA MARINE IRON WORKS
- Status
- Published