Ruddock Co. v. Johnson

Citations

• 6 Cal. Unrep. 846
• 67 P. 680
• 1902 Cal. LEXIS 891

Syllabus

<p>Agency—Authority of Agent—Statute of Frauds—Evidence.— In an action for damages for an alleged breach of a written contract to purchase peaches from plaintiff, the contract price being for more than $200, and the agent, who was claimed to have executed the contract for defendants, not having been authorized in writing, plaintiff contended that defendants were estopped to deny the agency, and to plead the statute of frauds, because of a holding out of the agent as such in previous similar transactions. The evidence showed that previous sales of fruit were made by plaintiff to other parties than defendants, .and defendants’ agent testified that he told plaintiff’s agent that the fruit in question was for the same purpose as formerly. It was shown that defendants were the agents of certain-fruit dealers, and that the agent whom it was claimed- had bound them was their subagent to purchase fruit for defendants’ principals. Held, that no estoppel was shown, ostensible authority as a subagent not conferring authority to bind defendants as principals.</p> <p>Evidence.—A Withdrawn Cross-complaint is not Admissible in evidence.</p>