Frank H. Harrah & Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Tonkawa

1910 OK 210, 110 P. 725, 26 Okla. 620, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 107
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJuly 12, 1910
Docket587
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 1910 OK 210 (Frank H. Harrah & Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Tonkawa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Frank H. Harrah & Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Tonkawa, 1910 OK 210, 110 P. 725, 26 Okla. 620, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 107 (Okla. 1910).

Opinion

*624 WILLIAMS, J.

(after stating the facts as above.) The only question essential for determination is as to the motion for a directed verdict in favor of the plaintiff. There is no evidence reasonably. tending to show any agency of F. S. Stewart or the Ton-kawa Commission Company, or of any authority given by the plaintiff to make the draft in question. The uncontroverted evidence was that Stewart went to Tonkawa and opened up the business of the Tonkawa Commission Company for himself, he to pay a monthly rental and one-fifth of the commission for the use of plaintiffs wire; that plaintiff and the Tonkawa Commission Company were separate and independent, F. S-. Stewart alone constituting the Tonkawa Commission Company. Two accounts were kept at the bank; one of Harrah & Co. being moneys deposited by F. S. Stewart for it, and the other, the Tonkawa Commission Company, having been created by moneys deposited by Stewart. Stewart neither exercised any control whatever over the .former, nor the plaintiff over the latter; Stewart exclusively controlling the latter account, and the plaintiff the former. Stewart had drawn only one draft for $84.25 on plaintiff prior to this transaction, having been specially authorized thereto, which was honored, being a usual transaction, not necessarily indicative of agency. No checks were ever drawn by Stewart on the account of plaintiff. That rebuts the idea of agency. Under this record, the plaintiff should have recovered, and the lower court.erred in not directing a verdict in its favor. Stock Exch. Bank v. Williamson, 6 Okla. 348, 50 Pac. 93.

The judgment of the lower, court is reversed and remanded, with instructions to grant a new trial and proceed in accordance with this opinion.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Motor Mortgage Co. v. Hamilton
1936 OK 88 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)
Invader Oil Corp. v. Commerce Trust Co.
1925 OK 578 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
First & Old Detroit Nat. Bank v. Holloman
1922 OK 216 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1922)
Munnah v. Gates
1919 OK 194 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1919)
Conwill v. Eldridge
1918 OK 705 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
Brisley v. Mahaffey
1917 OK 209 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1917)
Gower v. Short
1912 OK 677 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Nicholson v. Scioto Valley Traction Co.
14 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 177 (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division, 1912)
Offutt v. Wagoner
1911 OK 512 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Fitzpatrick v. Nations
1911 OK 500 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1910 OK 210, 110 P. 725, 26 Okla. 620, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-h-harrah-co-v-first-nat-bank-of-tonkawa-okla-1910.