Opinion ID: 7118184
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was the plaintiff entitled to a directed verdict against IGearns?

Text: i. principal and iSuty atoentMra tracts^' con Kearns signed the contract and the notes as purported “manager” only. The petition specifically alleged that Sketchley was the proprietor, and that Kearns was his manager. Notwithstanding this allegation, the petition prayed judgment against both. There was no..allegation in the petition that sought to charge Kearns with liability on the ground that he lacked the authority which he assumed, or that he wrongfully assumed to represent his purported principal, when he had, in fact, no authority so to do. Upon this state of the pleadings, Kearns must be deemed a mere agent'; and he was entitled to a directed verdict on that ground alone. 2. Principal and agent : authority of agent: burden of proof. 3. Partnership : creation and requisites: supplying building and funds to run a store. 4. Principal and agent: authorfication1-8 evi-atl aenoe- II. Was the plaintiff entitled to a directed verdici against Sketchley? The plaintiff had the burden of proof, as against Sketchley, to show that Kearns was authorized to sign the contract. The business which Kearns managed was a retail grocery store. No groceries are included in the contract. The relation between Sketchley and Kearns is not easy of definition. Kearns was a man of business experience, and without capital. Sketchley was the owner of a store building. He supplied the funds to place a grocery stock of goods in such store building, and turned it over to Kearns under an an rangement whereby Sketchley was to receive $20 a month rent, and 8 per cent interest upon the capital invested in the stock. These charges to Sketchley were to be paid out of the profits, and the remainder was to belong to Kearns. The title to the stock was held by Sketchley as in the nature of security. The arrangement between them? therefore, was not a partnership, nor was it wholly a contract of employment. It may be said, also, that it did involve, to some extent, the relation of principal and agent. What is clear is that there was nothing in the contract between ° Sketchley and Kearns which could be construed to confer • authority, either express or implied, upon Kearns to invest in the name of Sketchley in a lot of pianos and jewelry, for the purpose of distributing them gratis among alleged ticket holders. There was no evidence that Sketchley at any time or in any manner authorized, approved, or ratified the contract in question. The plaintiff named “J. D. Sketchley Store” as a defendant. The evidence is undisputed that there was no such entity. The store was known locally as “Kearns’ G-rocery.” To go further into the record, the contract sued on discloses that the plaintiff bound itself to results in the way of increase of business, as a result of the advertising scheme. The evidence is undisputed that there were no results, and that there was no increase in business. We reach the clear conclusion that Sketchley, also, was entitled to a directed verdict. The triál court was more generous to the plaintiff. It submitted certain issues to the jury whereby a verdict might have been rendered against one defendant or the other, but not against both. The plaintiff complains of these instructions. It is enough to say that they were more favorable to the plaintiff than it was entitled to, as we have already indicated. . The plaintiff’s case was properly dismissed. The judgment below is, accordingly, — Affirmed. Ladd, O. J., Preston and Salinger, JJ., concur.