Rainey v. Potter

Citations

• 120 F. 651
• 57 C.C.A. 113
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4516

Syllabus

<p>1. Contract — Agency to Execute — Charter of Vessel.</p> <p>Defendants were coal dealers having an office in New York, which was in charge of a clerk, who was authorized to charter vessels to be used in their business. After some conversation with the clerk, plaintiff’s broker called on him at defendants’ office, and presented a memorandum of charter for a vessel owned by plaintiff, purporting on its face to be made with defendants, which the clerk signed with his own name. Held, that under such circumstances, the authority of the clerk to execute charter for defendants being admitted, unless he made known to the broker or to plaintiff that he was not acting for defendants, they were bound by the charter, and liable for a failure to carry it out.</p> <p>2. Trial — Order of Proof.</p> <p>Where a complaint alleged that a certain person was defendants’ agent, and that defendants, through him, entered into the contract sued on, both of which allegations were denied, it is immaterial which one is proved first, and the admission of evidence of the agent’s authority before the introduction of the contract was not error.</p> <p>8. Appeal — Review—Harmless Error.</p> <p>. Where there was no dispute as to the terms of the written contract sued on as proved, the admission of evidence of prior negotiations is harmless error.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>The permitting of leading questions is largely discretionary, and they will not be held ground for reversal, where it is clear that they were not prejudicial.</p>