This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action to recover for services in securing a purchaser for certain wines owned by the defendant undеr an alleged contract with the defendant whereby he was to receive as his remuneration for such services any amount in excess of thirty cents per gallon for which he should sell sаid wine. With relation to the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, and its fulfillment, the court found: That the parties had entered into a contract the terms of which were as alleged by the plaintiff, and that thereafter, while said contract was in full force and effect, the plaintiff obtained a purchaser who was ready, able, and willing to purchase sixty thousаnd gallons of wine at a price of thirty-five cents per gallon and upon the terms contained in the contract between the plaintiff and defendant, and said plaintiff immediately notified said defendant thereof and of the name of said purchaser and brought said defendant and said purchaser together at the city of Fresno, and that the defendant thereupon аgreed to make said sale and deliver said wine on said terms to said purchaser; that said purchaser agreed to accept said wine and to pay for the same in cash, but thаt said defendant, thereafter, and without any cause or reason, and without any fault on the part of the plaintiff, or upon the part of the purchaser, declined to consummate the sale and declined to make delivery.
This leaves for our consideration the further objection made by the appellant that the plaintiff is not entitlеd to recover because Mr. Baker, purporting to act for the Jesse Moore Hunt Company, the purchaser, was without authority to consummate the sale in accordanсe with the terms of the, contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that the defendant could not have enforced said agreement against the said Jesse Moore Hunt Cоmpany, for whom Baker was acting if he had so desired, and, therefore, he was not liable to the plaintiff for commissions. This contention arises under the following facts in evidence: It is conceded that Mr. Baker was the general manager of the Jesse Moore Hunt Company. He testified that he had bought and sold large quantities of wine for said company while acting as its mаnager. Appellant relies upon an alleged limitation upon the said manager’s general authority to contract, by reason of the adoption of a resolution by the boаrd of directors of said company, which resolution was in effect at the time of the transactions out of which this action grew. This resolution appointed Mr. Baker “manager of the company, to have charge of the handling of the business under the direction of the president.” Mr. Baker testified that the plaintiff Simpson was present at a conversation between Bаker and the president of said company, at which time it was stated that Mr. Simpson had offered to sell to said company sixty thousand .gallons of wine at thirty-five cents per gallon, less four per cent for cash, and that the president of said company had told Baker that it was all right and he might go ahead and make the purchase and might go to Fresno to complete the transaction. Baker testified that he went to Fresno and was met by the plaintiff, who told him at that time that he was uncertain about the allowance of four per cent discount for сash; that Baker thereafter discussed the matter with the defendant, telling said defendant that the wine had been *665 sold to him by Simpson at thirty-five cents per gallon, less four per cent, but that Halter, the defendant, refused to allow the discount. Baker then stated to Halter that, nevertheless, he would take the wine at thirty-five cents per gallon and would pay cash for it if desired. Appеllant argues that by virtue of the resolution of the board of directors above referred to, the president of the company had the authority to direct the business activities of the manager in all particulars; that the president’s consent to the purchase was based upon his understanding of the contract as one to purchase at thirty-five cents per gallon, less four per cent; that his consent was given on such terms alone, and that Baker had no broader authority. Appellant argues that if the Jesse Hoore Hunt Company had elected to repudiate the contract sought to be made by Baker, the defendant would have been unable to enforce the same, because Baker’s authority was limited and was not sufficient to make the contract attempted to be made. And it is pointed out that such limitation upon Baker’s authority was known to Simpson who was present during the conversation with the prеsident, and Simpson acted as the agent of Halter and his knowledge was the knowledge of his principal.
If the manager’s authority was so limited that it was necessary for him to have express authority from the president in each instance before malting a purchase of wine, the question of how little or how much he might vary from his instructions without releasing his company would become pertinent. But we think no such question confronts us here, because there is an implied finding of the trial court that there was no such limitation upon the authority of the agent as the appellant maintains.
Nourse, J., and Brittain, J., concurred.
*667 A petition to have the cause heard in'the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on December 18, 1919.
All the Justices concurred, except Melvin, J., who was absent.