T. L. Farrow Mercantile Co. v. Vest

Alabama Court of Appeals

T. L. Farrow Mercantile Co. v. Vest

90 So. 59, 18 Ala. App. 243, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 197

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 1921

Docket8 Div. 812.

StatusPublished

This text of 90 So. 59 (T. L. Farrow Mercantile Co. v. Vest) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

T. L. Farrow Mercantile Co. v. Vest, 90 So. 59, 18 Ala. App. 243, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 197 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

This was action brought by R. P. Vest against T. R. Farrow Mercantile Company, a corporation, to recover the penalty of $200, provided by section 4898 of the Code of 1907, for the failure of a mortgagee, for more than two months after written request to do so, to enter the fact of satisfaction on the margin of the record of the mortgage. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and from this judgment the defendant appealed.

The trial court gave the affirmative charge for the plaintiff, and this action of the court is the basis of one of the three assignments of error. The bill of exceptions purports to set out all of the evidence offered at the trial of this cause. The defendant introduced no evidence whatever and the case was submitted upon plaintiff’s testimony alone.

[1, 2] The defendant was a corporation and the notice to enter satisfaction of the mortgage was given to a Mr. Farrow. We have read over the evidence set out in the bill of exceptions with great care. There was no proof or evidence before the trial court that Mr. Farrow, the person to whom the notice was given, was an agent, officer, or employee of the, corporation, or that he was connected in any way with the management, or direction of the business of appellant. Mr. Farrow’s relation, if any, to the corporation, is not shown by this, evidence. A corporation is bound only by the acts of its agents acting within the line and scope of their agency. To bind a corporation by the acts of a person, there must be evidence at least tending to prove that such person was the agent or employee of the corporation. Smith v. Plank Road Co., 30 Ala. 650. Brush Electric L. & P. Co. v. City Council of Montgomery, 114 Ala. 433, 21 South. 960.

Under this evidence the court erred in giving the affirmative charge for the plaintiff, and under the evidence as presented to us, the court should have given the affirmative charge for the defendant.

It is unnecessary for us to discuss the other assignments of error.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

This was action brought by R. P. Vest against T. R. Farrow Mercantile Company, a corporation, to recover the penalty of $200, provided by section 4898 of the Code of 1907, for the failure of a mortgagee, for more than two months after written request to do so, to enter the fact of satisfaction on the margin of the record of the mortgage. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and from this judgment the defendant appealed.

The trial court gave the affirmative charge for the plaintiff, and this action of the court is the basis of one of the three assignments of error. The bill of exceptions purports to set out all of the evidence offered at the trial of this cause. The defendant introduced no evidence whatever and the case was submitted upon plaintiff’s testimony alone.

[1, 2] The defendant was a corporation and the notice to enter satisfaction of the mortgage was given to a Mr. Farrow. We have read over the evidence set out in the bill of exceptions with great care. There was no proof or evidence before the trial court that Mr. Farrow, the person to whom the notice was given, was an agent, officer, or employee of the, corporation, or that he was connected in any way with the management, or direction of the business of appellant. Mr. Farrow’s relation, if any, to the corporation, is not shown by this, evidence. A corporation is bound only by the acts of its agents acting within the line and scope of their agency. To bind a corporation by the acts of a person, there must be evidence at least tending to prove that such person was the agent or employee of the corporation. Smith v. Plank Road Co., 30 Ala. 650. Brush Electric L. & P. Co. v. City Council of Montgomery, 114 Ala. 433, 21 South. 960.

Under this evidence the court erred in giving the affirmative charge for the plaintiff, and under the evidence as presented to us, the court should have given the affirmative charge for the defendant.

It is unnecessary for us to discuss the other assignments of error.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 So. 59, 18 Ala. App. 243, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/t-l-farrow-mercantile-co-v-vest-alactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack