Kidd-Russ Trunk & Bag Co. v. Meyer

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Kidd-Russ Trunk & Bag Co. v. Meyer

123 So. 506, 11 La. App. 210, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 663

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 1, 1929

DocketNo. 3236

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 So. 506 (Kidd-Russ Trunk & Bag Co. v. Meyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kidd-Russ Trunk & Bag Co. v. Meyer, 123 So. 506, 11 La. App. 210, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 663 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBB, J.

This is an action on open account for merchandise alleged to have been sold by plaintiff to defendant, in which the defense interposed was that a portion of the merchandise was purchased for the use of a corporation with which defendant was associated, and defendant appeals from a judgment against him for the full amount claimed.

The purchases were made by defendant, who did not disclose that he was acting as the agent of the corporation, or that any part of the merchandise was for the use of the corporation; and it further appearing that the merchandise was charged to defendant, who received statements showing same, and did not protest until demand was made prior to suit, and plaintiff’s representative testifying that credit was extended to defendant, and that he did not know of the existence of the corporation for which defendant was acting, we are of the opinion that under the evidence the court properly applied the general rule that one acting as agent for another is (personally answerable if he fails to disclose his principal (R. C. L., Principal and Agent, vol. 21, page 895; article 3012, Civil Code).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

WEBB, J.

This is an action on open account for merchandise alleged to have been sold by plaintiff to defendant, in which the defense interposed was that a portion of the merchandise was purchased for the use of a corporation with which defendant was associated, and defendant appeals from a judgment against him for the full amount claimed.

The purchases were made by defendant, who did not disclose that he was acting as the agent of the corporation, or that any part of the merchandise was for the use of the corporation; and it further appearing that the merchandise was charged to defendant, who received statements showing same, and did not protest until demand was made prior to suit, and plaintiff’s representative testifying that credit was extended to defendant, and that he did not know of the existence of the corporation for which defendant was acting, we are of the opinion that under the evidence the court properly applied the general rule that one acting as agent for another is (personally answerable if he fails to disclose his principal (R. C. L., Principal and Agent, vol. 21, page 895; article 3012, Civil Code).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 So. 506, 11 La. App. 210, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kidd-russ-trunk-bag-co-v-meyer-lactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack