Court Opinion

ID: 9831179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:53:11.436425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:32.179959
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The undisputed evidence shows that the R. H. Wester Company was composed of R. H. Wester, and that C. F. Ketter, Chadwick, and Crouch were working for Wester as employes. Ketter says: “I was not interested in the Wester Company, only as an employe; and it was not a Realty Investment Company transaction, but an R. H. Wester Company, as agent, transaction, regardless of how the papers were signed.” It was further shown that Wester not only composed the firm of R. H. Wester Company, but the commission would be payable to him. Neither Crouch, Chadwick, or Ketter shared in the profits. Vaearezza knew that the Wester Company was acting as agent, and knew that Bonnin owned the property. No authority was given Ketter to make a contract in the name of Realty Investment Company to sell property, and he says he signed that name by mistake or ignorance. Appellant did not think he was dealing with the corporation, but says he was dealing with R, I-I. Wester Company, the agents. The evidence is undisputed that R. H. Wester is the sole member of that company. In view of these facts, we think the court correctly instructed the jury to render the verdict against R. H. Wester, doing business under the coinpany name.
[4] It matters not what O. F. Ketter thought he was doing when the contract was signed, in so far as Realty Investment Company is concerned, because he was not authorized to make the contract. Appellant does not contend that he was dealing with that corporation, but says repeatedly that he was dealing with R. H. Wester Company. And Ketter says he was acting for that company. Vaearezza made his check to the Wester Company. The result is that appellant had no contract for the purchase of the property that was enforceable. Having no valid contract, he had no right to recover damages on account of a breach of same.
[5] This being true the alleged newly discovered evidence about Wester’s dealings with Barnell is immaterial, and would not authorize the granting of ,a new trial. It was our purpose to overrule all assignments, and, if the original opinion is not clear on that matter, we here state that all assignments were thus dealt with.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.