Case ID: nc_152/html/0547-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Brown, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

W. C. DOWD v. W. E. HOLBROOK.
    (Filed 11 May, 1910.)
    1. Principal and Agent — Agents—Purchasers—Principal’s Business— Title.
    The title to property purchased by an agent which he is authorized to purchase for his principal, and used in the business of the latter, vests in the principal.
    2. Principal and Agent — Purchaser for Principal — Title.
    The title to property purchased by an agent with his own funds for his principal’s business, of which agent has charge, vests in the principal.
    3. Same — Principal’s Liability.
    The principal is liable to the agent for the value of goods purchased by the latter personally, but under circumstances which vests the title to the goods purchased in the former.
    Appeal from Qouncül, Jat November Term, 1909, of Catawba.
    Civil action, brought to recover ..possession of a newspaper, called "The Hickory Democrat ” together with the printing plant described in the complaint.
    These issues were submitted:
    1. Is the plaintiff the owner and entitled to the possession of the property described in the complaint ? Answer: Yes.
    2. What is the value of the property described in the complaint? Answer: $1,800.
    From the judgment rendered defendant appealed. .
    
      Witherspoon & Witherspoon, McNinch & Justice and W. G. Feimster for plaintiff.
    
      E. B. Gline, W. A. Self and G. L. Whitener for defendant.
   Brown, J.

An examination of the pleadings and evidence shows quite clearly that the controversy involves almost exclusively a question of fact, and that it is settled against the 'defendant by the verdict of the jury.

We are of opinion that the numerous exceptions are without merit and that a discussion of them is unnecessary.

The case of defendant is based largely upon the theory that he purchased certain additions to the newspaper equipment and paid for them out of his own funds; and that he was a part owner with the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that defendant was his agent and in charge of the business, and that he pur; chased such additions for plaintiff, and while he may have a debt against plaintiff, the property became that of the plaintiff.

There is evidence to prove that tbe printing plant in question was from time to time added to and paid for out of tbe proceeds of tbe business; that tbe defendant was managing agent of tbe plaintiff, and that be made some purchases for this plant out of bis own funds.

His Honor, we think, clearly and correctly instructed tbe jury on this feature of tbe ease. It is well established that where an agent purchases, for himself, property be is authorized to jmrchase for bis principal, that tbe title to tbe same immediately vests in tbe principal. Deep River Gold Mining Co. v. Fox, 39 N. C., 61; Carroll v. McKale, 69 N. W., 644; Edwards v. Dobley, 24 N. E., 821; Bergner v. Bergner, 61 Atl., 999; Cyc., vbl. 31, p. 1471.

Tbe principle is equally true where tbe agent makes such . jmrchase with bis own private funds for tbe principal's benefit. Cyc., vol. 31, page 1441; Bergner v. Bergner, 67 Atl., 999; Oliver v. Kastor, 101 S. W., 563.

Tbe defendant banded up three prayers for instruction, which were given by tbe court and upon which tbe defense was based. After reading them to tbe jury bis Honor stated clearly and correctly: “I conceive that to be tbe law, gentlemen of tbe jury, that where two people are joint owners of a piece of property neither one can maintain an action for tbe exclusive possession against' tbe other. So if tbe plaintiff has failed to satisfy you that be is the sole owner of tbe property, then, whatever bis rights may be as a partner, you should answer tbe first issue No.’ ”

We think tbe case has been well and fairly tried, and we are unable to find any error in tbe record of which the defendant can justly complain.

No error.