Case Name: BERNARD GLOEKLER CO. v. WESTBROOK HOTEL CO.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-11-24
Citations: 258 S.W. 870
Docket Number: No. 10442
Parties: BERNARD GLOEKLER CO. v. WESTBROOK HOTEL CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 258
Pages: 870–876

Head Matter:
BERNARD GLOEKLER CO. v. WESTBROOK HOTEL CO.
(No. 10442.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.
Nov. 24, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 26, 1924.)
1. Appeal and error ©=»742 (I)— Assignments of error, without propositions with reference thereto, not considered.
Assignments of error, without propositions of law submitted with reference thereto, need not he considered.
2. Appeal and error 051 (I) — Admitting
evidence showing payments on account, if error, was harmless, when same payments otherwise shown.'
In action for price of hotel equipment sold through plaintiff’s agent, where payment of certain items to apply on the account was proved by checks issued by defendant to the agent, any error in admitting evidence of the account kept by defendant with the agent, showing payment of the same sums, was harmless.
3. Appeal and error <®=»231(3) — Objection to admission of all answers of witness overruled, where some answers clearly admissible.
Where objection was addressed to the ad•mission of all answers of a witness, some of which were clearly admissible, assignment of error thereon will be overruled.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Principal and agent @=5124(3) — 'Whether
agent to sell had “apparent authority” to collect held for jury.
In an action for unpaid balance of contract price of hotel kitchen equipment, which was to be installed by plaintiff’s selling agent, whether agent had “apparent authority” to collect held, under the evidence, properly submitted to jury (quoting 1 Words and Phrases, Second Series, p. 241).
[Ed. Note. — Eor other definitions, see Words and Phrases, Eirst and Second Series, Apparent Authority.]
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; Bruce Young, Judge.
Action by the Bernard Gloékler Company against the Westbrook Hotel Company, a co-partnership. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Dedmon & Potter and Clay Cooke, all of Port Worth, for appellant.
A. J. Clendenen, of Port Worth, for appel-lee.

Opinion:
DUNKLIN, J.
During the year 1917 the Bernard Gloekler Company was engaged in manufacturing and installing cooking apparatus, kitchen equipment, and refrigerators to be used in restaurants and hotels, and the Hygro Company, of Dallas, was one of its sales agents. On June 4, 1917, the former company submitted a proposition in writing to the Westbrook Hotel Company, which was engaged in the operation of a hotel in the city of Port Worth, Tex., to furnish and install in said hotel certain kitchen equipment according to specifications accompanying the offer, all for the contract price of $5,296.20. That proposition was duly accepted by the West-brook Hotel Company. Later an additional contract was made, by the terms of which the manufacturing company agreed to furnish a canopy, to be used in connection with the kitchen equipment, for the sum of $410, which the hotel company agreed to pay, making a total which the hotel company agreed to pay $5,666.20. The equipment so ordered was installed in accordance with the terms of the contract, and this suit was instituted against the individuals composing the partnership firm of the Westbrook Hotel Company to recover $2,226.60, the sum which plaintiff alleged to be due it as the unpaid balance of said contract price. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant company, and the plaintiff company has appealed.
The evidence shows without dispute that the Hygro Company, of Dallas, Tex., was handling articles manufactured by the plaintiff company, and that the contract between the plaintiff and defendant resulted from negotiations conducted by the Hygro Company as a sales agent for plaintiff company. The evidence further shows that one Mr. Gros-man, who resided in Dallas and had charge of the business of the Hygro Company, acted for plaintiff company in the installation of the kitchen equipment in the Westbrook Hotel; that he employed, paid for, and superintended the doing of all the work required to accomplish that result; and that the defendant company had no other representative in that matter, but intrusted the same to the Hygro Company and its representatives. The evidence further showed that the Hygro Company, upon its own account and under a separate contract with the defendant, installed some additional equipment at the same time, which was not furnished by the plaintiff company. The defendant company carried plaintiff's account on its books in the name of the Hygro Company. During the progress of the work funds were required to pay workmen employed and to defray other expenses necessarily incident to the installation of the kitchen equipment. In order to meet those demands Grosman repeatedly called upon Mr. Huckins, representing the defendant company, for necessary funds, which were advanced and used for that purpose. No testimony was introduced to show that the plaintiff company furnished any money for that purpose, or made any arrangements with any one to furnish it within the knowledge of defendant, although the contract price charged by it included the cost of the installation, as well as the cost of furnishing the kitchen equipment.
Several months intervened between the date of the contract sued on between the plaintiff and defendant and the date when the installation of the equipment was finished. During that period, and while the work was in progress, the defendant made to the Hygro Company several payments, aggregating $4,875, one payment of $1,250 being made July 6,1917, another for $1,500 July 12, another for $1,000 July 21, another for $2,500 August 2, another for $500 August 8, and another for $500 September 14, and according to the testimony of defendant Huckins those payments were intended and understood by him as payments on plaintiff's account, and no evidence was introduced to show that the Hygro Company had a contrary intention or understanding. The defendant also paid freight on the shipments made by the plaintiff aggregating $435.58. On October 31, 1917, the plaintiff company wired to the defendant company as follows:
"Pay no moneys for our account to Hygro Company. Make all payments direct to this company."
On November 5th plaintiff sent another telegram reading as follows:
"Hygro Company not authorized to collect moneys our contract is with you. Will hold you responsible for all payments."
On the same day the second telegram was sent, plaintiff by letter to the defendant company confirmed both telegrams and concluded that letter with the following:
"We do not know whether the Hygro Company collected any more moneys or not; we never authorized them to do so — only what our man reported to us. Did the Hygro Company represent themselves as our representatives?"
After receipt of that correspondence, the defendant made no further payments to the Hygro Company on plaintiff's account, and later paid to plaintiff company the sum of $900. The amount so paid, plus the amount already paid to the Hygro Company, with freight charges added, was in excess of the full contract price which the defendant agreed to pay plaintiff for furnishing and installing the kitchen equipment contracted. In addition to tjie amount so paid, the defendant made further payments, which,. together with those mentioned above, aggregated the full sums owing on plaintiff's contract and on the separate contract made with the Hygro Company, amounting in all to more than $6,500.
Following are two issues submitted to the jury,'with their findings thereon:
"(1) Did the Hygro Company have authority from the plaintiff, Bernard Gloekler Company, to collect or accept payment from the Westbrook Hotel Company for goods furnished or work performed under the contract between the Bernard Gloekler Company and the West-brook Hotel Company introduced in evidence before you? Answer. No.
"(2) If you have answered the above question in the affirmative, you need not answer the remaining question; but, if you have answered the same in the negative, then you will further state whether or not the act or acts or omissions comprising the dealings and transactions had by the defendant Westbrook Hotel Company with the plaintiff Bernard Gloekler Company, and the Hygro Company were such as that a man exercising ordinary care and prudence would have been led to believe that the Hygro Company had the authority from the Bernard Gloekler Company to receive payment for goods furnished .and labor performed under the contract between the Bernard Gloek-ler Company and the Westbrook Hotel Company which has been introduced in evidence before you? Answer. Tes."
It thus appears that the jury found that the Hygro Company had no express authority from the plaintiff to make collections for it, but that it had implied authority so to do, or that It was in the apparent scope of its authority to make such collection. Assignments have been presented to the second issue so submitted as an improper presentation of the question whether or not it was in the apparent scope of the authority of the Hygro Company to make collections on plaintiff's account from the defendant company. It is insisted, further, that it is not within the scope of authority of a sales agent to collect for the articles sold by him, and that the evidence fails to establish implied authority on the part of the Hygro Company to make collections for the plaintiff. In plaintiff's pleadings two credits on its accounts are admitted, one of which payments was made of $1,500, and another of $1,000. The evidence showed that those two payments were made by defendant by checks given to the Hygro Company, to whom they were made payable, and that the Hygro Company cashed the same and sent its own checks to plaintiff in lieu thereof, stating to plaintiff that they had been made by the defendant on plaintiff's account. After receiving those payments, which were received by it on July 6 and July 27, respectively, the plaintiff did not notify the defendant of any lack of authority in the Hygro Company to receive payments for plaintiff. The first, notice to that effect was the telegram which it sent to the defendant' on October 31. On July 2, 1917, the plaintiff company wrote a letter to the Hygro Company reading, in part, as follows:
"The Hygro Company of Texas, Dallas, Texas — Gentlemen: Re Westbrook Hotel. We received yours of June 28th this a. m., along with signed addendum for the above hotel. We also note that tables, stools, canopy and block tin coils have been omitted. Our price to you on this entire contract, with these items eliminated, but including canopy — according to our telegram of June 28th — is four thousand fourteen and 50/ioo ($4,014.50) dollars, f. o. b. Pittsburgh. Our figure to the Westbrook Hotel Company is, according to our letter of June 4th, $5,256.20, installed complete, and our letter of July 2d of $410 for canopy, f. o. b. Pittsburgh. This figure of $5,256.20 was quoted with the Hygro Company take care of freight and erection. Kindly inform us on what terms payment is to be made on this contract."
In reply to that letter, the Hygro Company wrote the plaintiff as follows:
"July 11, 1917.
"Bernard Gloekler Company, 1127 Penn Ave., Pittsburgh, Pa. — Gentlemen: Re Westbrook Hotel. Replying to your favor of July 2d, we mailed you some time ago a drawing O. K.'d by Mr. Huckins, of lunch counter, equipment, etc.. In reference to payment of this job, it was our understanding with Mr. Huckins that upon the arrival and installation of the goods that he would give us a check for the full amount. After receiving your letter the writer called on Mr. Huckins and explained to him that you had requested a cash payment, which is customary, in order to rush this order through. We finally persuaded him to give us his check for $1,000, and we herewith inclose our check for this amount, which you will kindly apply to credit of the Westbrook Hotel. We feel sure that if you will rush the order out with as little delay as possible that upon arrival of goods, before installation, we can get $1,500 more, then immediately fixtures are installed and accepted you will receive a check for the balance. Kindly acknowledge receipt of this payment and oblige."
Defendant had no knowledge of that correspondence.
The following is one of the definitions given in 1 Words and Phrases, Second Series, p. 241 of "apparent authority.":
"An act is within the 'apparent' scope of an agent's authority when a reasonably prudent person, having knowledge of the nature and usages of the business, is justified in supposing that he is authorized to perform it from the character of the duties which are known to be intrusted to ' him. Townsend v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 128 Pac. 389, 88 Kan. 260."
In 21 R. C. L. pp. 854, 855, the following is said:
"The liability of the principal is not limited to such acts of the agent as are expressly authorized or necessarily implied from express authority. All such acts of the agent as are within the apparent scope of the authority conferred on him are also binding upon the principal, apparent authority being that which, though not actually granted, the principal knowingly permits the agent to exercise, or which he holds him out as possessing. By implication the authority of the agent is enlarged, when the principal permits him to do acts not expressly authorized, or which are recognized as valid after they have been done. And the actual instructions from principal to , agent do not govern the case, unless the person dealing with him had notice or was put upon inquiry as to his real authority. Apparent authority may be and often is derived from a course of dealing, or from a number of acts assented to or not disavowed. Thus, one who is permitted, temporarily, in the absence of a manager of a company, to assume authority and discharge the functions of such manager, has for the time being the same power as if he were the regular manager."
In view of those authorities, we are unable to say that the issue of apparent authority was incorrectly submitted. Nor can we say that the finding of the jury in answer thereto was not supported by evidence. Appellant insists that at all events the evidence did not show any authority in the Hygro Company to collect for the $1,250 item which was paid by the defendant on July 6th, which was prior to the receipts by plaintiff of the pdyments of $1,000 and $1,500 made a few days thereafter, and that therefore judgment should have been rendered in .its favor for that amount even though plaintiff should be denied any further recovery. But we are unable to concur with that contention, in view of all the facts related above.
Two assignments of error appear at the close of appellants' brief, but no proposition of law is submitted with reference to cither, and for that reason we would be authorized to refuse to consider them. One of these assignments is addressed to the admission in evidence of the account kept by defendant with the Hygro Company, showing the payments of the sums which defendant claimed as credits on defendant's contract with the plaintiff. Thé same payments were proved by checks, marked "Paid," issued by the defendant, made payable to the Hygro Company, and shown above; hence, if there was error in admitting the account, of which we have grave.doubt, the same was harmless.
The other assignment referred to was addressed to the admission- of several answers of the witness Huckins to several questions, the objection being addressed to all those answers considered as a whole, and, as some of those answers were clearly admissible, the assignment is overruled, aside from the question whether or not others were subject to the objection made.
For the reasons noted, all of appellant's assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
<g=sFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes -
<gssFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes