50 Neb. 764 | Neb. | 1897
This is a proceeding prosecuted by the plaintiffs in error, hereafter called the defendants, to reverse a judgment of the district court for Douglas county based upon the following instrument:
*765 “South Omaha, Neb., April 26,1897.
“M. Burke <& Sons, U. S. Yards, Neb. — Dear Sirs: We will guaranty the payment by R. Kunath in thirty days the sum of seven hundred ninety-one and 28-100 dollars, for seventeen head of cattle.
. “Oberne, Hosick &. Co.,
“Per Harmon.”
By the answer interposed below every allegation of the petition is put in issue; however, the only substantial controversy relates to the authority of Harmon, who signed the foregoing agreement, to bind the defendants by contracts of like nature executed in their name. A former judgment in favor of the plaintiffs below was reversed by this court on the ground that the contract sued on was not shown to be within the scope of the authority of the agent by whom it was executed, or that it had been subsequently ratified by the defendants. (See Oberne v. Burlce, 30 Neb., 581.) In addition to the facts stated in the opinion cited there was, on the second trial, evidence tending to prove that one Bush, who had the general charge and. supervision of the defendants’ business at Omaha, was absent from the state for the period of a month or more immediately preceding May 1, 1887, and that the said Harmon was, with the knowledge and approval of defendants, left in charge of their said business during his absence. There is, it is true, a suggestion to the effect that Harmon was a mere subagent of Bush,, and that, granting the power of the latter to bind defendants by contracts like that here involved, such authority implies the exercise of a personal judgment and discretion which cannot, without the consent of the principal, be delegated to another. But there was evidence which warranted the jury, in finding that Harmon was not a mere subagent; that he was, on the contrary, the accredited representative of the defendants, and clothed with whatever authority was possessed by Bush in the conduct and management of the business at Omaha. It was also shown by the testimony of Bush that he returned to Omaha about May 1, or five
We are also of the opinion that a ratification of Harmon’s act in pledging defendants’ credit may be implied from the facts and circumstances in evidence. In addition to the failure, above commented on, to give notice of the repudiation of the alleged unauthorized agreement until after default by Kunath, the party primarily liable to plaintiffs, it is conclusively shown that defendants at the time in question held a chattel mortgage upon his, Kunath’s, butcher shop, tools, and fixtures for $1,500, of which amount $1,075 represented an indebtedness previously assumed by defendants for the mortgagor, and the balance, $425, was to secure future advancements of money or cattle by defendants. It is also established beyond controversy that Bush, upon being notified of the guaranty by Harmon in defendants’ name, and before maturity of the debt which was the subject of that contract, induced Kunath to surrender to him the property covered by said mortgage, and which was by agreement disposed of at private sale on defendants’ account. Kunath, who was called as a witness for plaintiffs, testified, in referring to the foreclosure of the mortgage, as follows:
Q. When you turned over all the property under that mortgage, did the amount you owed him at that time, and for which the mortgage was taken, include the $791 for these cattle? [Referring to the indebtedness mentioned in the contract of guaranty.]
A. Yes, sir. * * *
Q. At the time Oberne, Hosick & Co. took your property under this mortgage, about what amount were you owing them outside of this $791?
A. In the neighborhood of $400.
The foregoing statement, so far as it relates to the application to be made of the proceeds of the mortgaged property, is not expressly contradicted by Bush, who tes
There are other assignments presented by the arguments of counsel, but which, in view of the conclusion above stated, do not call for notice at this time. There being no error in the record, the judgment is
Affirmed.