Smith v. Watson, Sumner & Co.

Citations

• 82 Va. 712
• 1 S.E. 96
• 1886 Va. LEXIS 92

Syllabus

<p>1. Principal and Agent—Liability■—Case at bar.—S. did business as “O. D. P. Mills,” with K. for -manager. K. bought goods, gave notes, and conducted concern. September 1st S. leased the business to K., and so advertised in Richmond. August 29th K. went to N. Y., and, as usual, bought goods from W., who regarded S. as principal and solvent, and K. as agent and insolvent, no mention being made by K. to W. of intended lease. The goods were received at the mills, and K. writing on the usual paper headed “O. D. Paper Mills, S. Proprietor,” sent W. a note for the price of the goods, signed, as usual, “ O. D. Paper Mills, K. Manager,” which was accepted by W., and placed to credit of S. Afterward, K. sent W. a circular announcing the lease whereof W. had never before heard. The note having been protested for non-payment, W. sued S. on it—</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>Under the circumstances, S. is liable on the note.</p> <p>2. Witness—Impeachment—Former statement.—Where agent testifies in chief, that he, and not principal, is liable for the debt, it is allowable on cross-examination to ask him if, on a former occasion, giving time, place and person, he had not said principal ought to pay the debt.</p> <p>3. New Trial—After-discovered evidence.—New trial will not be awarded if after-discovered evidence be merely cumulative.</p>