Powell v. Wade

109 Ala. 95
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 109 Ala. 95 (Powell v. Wade) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Powell v. Wade, 109 Ala. 95 (Ala. 1895).

Opinion

BRICKELL, C. J.

A principal, whether disclosed or undisclosed, is bound by the acts or contracts of the agent, within the scope of the authority conferred. As he is bound by the contracts, whether oral or written, though made by and with the agent, in his own name, he may, in his own name, maintain an action thereon. If the contract is in writing, in the name of the agent alone, it is permissible by parol to show that in the making of the contract the agent was acting for the principal. Such proof does not contradict the writing; it only explains the transaction. — Ford v. Williams, 21 How. (U. S.) 287; Bishop on Contracts, § 1080; Mechem on Agency, § 769. In such action, the burden of proof lies on the principal to show the agency, and that in the making of the contract the agent was acting for him. This is the proposition asserted in the second instruction given at the instance of the defendant, and in the giving of it there was no error.

But the first instruction was erroneous. A count upon an account stated may be supported by evidence that the account was stated with the agent of the plaintiff, or by admissions made to an agenc. — 2 Green. Ev. § 126.

The third instruction contravenes the principle we have stated — that the plaintiff, though undisclosed as the principaland though the agent may may have contracted in his own name, may,'in his own name, maintain an action on the contract. The instruction was erroneous.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment must be reversed, and the'cause remanded.

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

Related

Ojus Mining Co. v. Manufacturers Trust Co.
82 F.2d 74 (Ninth Circuit, 1936)
Hill v. Gratigny Plateau Development Corp.
52 F.2d 142 (Sixth Circuit, 1931)
Childers v. Police Jury
121 So. 248 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1928)
Moore v. Consolidated Products Co.
10 F.2d 319 (Eighth Circuit, 1925)
Alkahest Lyceum System v. Dauphin Way Baptist Church
103 So. 719 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1925)
Mercer v. Germania Ins.
171 P. 412 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1918)
Security Loan & Trust Co. v. Powell
89 S.E. 91 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1916)
Brooks v. Greil Bros.
60 So. 389 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1912)
Shields v. Coyne
127 N.W. 63 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 Ala. 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-wade-ala-1895.