Court Opinion

ID: 9832682
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:06:11.809932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:50.118319
License: Public Domain

On Motion For Leave to File Second Motion For Rehearing.
It seems to us that the able counsel for appellant has overlooked the effect of the right given by the contract to appellee to extend a credit in a stated amount to a named customer. Evidently appellant, by the contract, assumed the loss of a default in payment within the authorized credit, appellee not becoming personally obligated except for such part of the customer’s indebtedness as exceeded the credit appellee was authorized to extend. If this construction of the contract be correct, and we think it is, it necessarily follows that, when the Blue Jay Service Station paid $589 on its indebtedness of $1,405, and when appellee’s commissions in the sum of $175, admittedly due him, is added to the $589, the indebtedness of the Blue Jay Service Station left unpaid was less than the credit appellant was authorized to extend, and hence the burden of its loss, if any, rests on appellant and not appellee. We think this would be admitted had the payment of the Blue Jay Service Station been made to appellee and reported and remitted to appellant during the period of appellee’s employment. The fact that the payment was made and received by appellant afterwards would not seem to alter the case. Apparently the trial court proceeded upon the theory above suggested, for the jury found appellee’s authorized credit to be $750, and from the judgment we think it is to be inferred that the court proceeded to deduct from the $1,405 indebtedness of the Blue Jay Service Station the payment of $589 made by that station, and then applied so much of ap-pellee’s commission as was necessary to extinguish all indebtedness of the Blue Jay Service Station in excess of $750, awarding to appellee on its cross-plea only the balance of the commission due him with interest. This we think was approximately at least correct, and the motion to file second motion for rehearing is accordingly overruled.