D. T. Iglehart & Co. v. Bartlett State Bank

KEY, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above). While all the questions presented in appellants’ brief bave been duly considered in tbe consultation room, this opinion will be limited to a discussion of but one question. Tbe controlling question in tbe case is one of agency. Tbe undisputed testimony shows that, prior to tbe beginning of tbe cotton season of 1909-1910, appellants Iglebart & Co., wbo were cotton factors in Austin, Tex., employed one E. L. Reifscbneider to act as tbeir agent in buying cotton at Bartlett, Tex. On March 31, 1910, Reifscbneider, acting for Iglebart & Co., made a contract with A. Beckmann, for the purchase of 299 bales of cotton for Iglebart & Co. at 14.4 cents per pound. Iglebart & Co. refused to accept and pay for the cotton, and, on tbe 2d day of April following, Beckmann sold tbe cotton on the market in Bartlett for tbe highest price obtainable, which was 1B.77Y2 cents per pound. Tbe difference between tbe total sum which Reifscbneider agreed to pay for tbe cotton and tbe total sum for which Beck-mann sold it was $991.69, for which sum Beckmann drew a draft on Iglebart & Co., which draft be discounted or sold to tbe bank, and guaranteed its payment. If Reif7 Schneider was Iglebart & Co.’s agent with the power to bind them by the contract be made for tbe purchase of the cotton on March 31, 1910, tbe judgment ought to be affirmed. Tbe trial court seems to bave concluded that Reifscbneider bad previously been discharged, and was not in fact Iglebart & Co.’s agent at the time referred to, but that, as be bad formerly been tbeir agent and bad dealt with Beckmann as such, and as Beckmann bad no notice of tbe revocation of his agency, he bad tbe right to deal with him as such agent, and Iglebart & Co. were bound by tbe contract of sale referred to.

One of tbe appellees, the Bartlett State Bank, has filed a cross-assignment of error, asserting that tbe court’s finding that Igle-hart & Co. bad discharged E. L. Reifschneider from tbeir employ, on March 23, 1910, is not supported by the testimony, and we sustain that assignment. Appellants contended in tbe court below, and contend in this court, that Reifsehneider was discharged through the medium of a letter, which they sent him, and which reads as follows: “March 23, 1910. Mr. E. L. Reifsehneider, Bartlett, Texas— Dear Sir: We are in receipt of your out-turns of the 8S B/C you delivered Hearne & Delesdinear. We have been able to cheek up 63 B/s of the 88, and find that the 63 B/s lose $64.40 'in weight, or 460 lbs. at HYs$- Also you delivered the 63 B/s for $45.66 less in class than you paid for. We could not check up all of the 88 B/s because you have never sent us the invoice of the last cotton you bought, that is, the cotton we did not know you had bought. We do not wish to buy any more cotton. We notice that numbers 24,375, 24,894, 24,895, 24,896 and 24,898, which you took up and paid for as good middling, you delivered for strict low middling. This is a finé way to make money out of the cotton business. We would thank you to re-sample all of the cotton you have on hand, on both sides, and send the samples to us with the numbers in same. Yours truly, D. T. Iglehart & Co.” We fail to find anything in the letter which can be construed as discharging Reifsehneider and terminating his agency. It seems to contain certain complaints as to the manner in which he had been conducting the business at Bartlett, and contains the statement that Iglehart & Co. did not wish to buy any more cotton; but, instead of telling him that he was discharged, or that his agency was terminated, it concludes with a request that he should proceed to do certain things, which they had a right to require him to do under his contract of agency. It was also shown that when Reifsehneider conversed with Iglehart & Co. by telephone on March 31st in reference to buying Beckmann’s cotton they told him they did not want the cotton, and would not make any oiler for it, but they did not tell him that he was discharged and his agency revoked. From the beginning of the cotton season in August, 1909, and up to that time, Reif-sehneider had been acting as their agent in buying cotton in Bartlett, and had previously so acted in a transaction with Beckmann. At the beginning of the cotton season, Igle-hart & Co. had written to both banks in Bartlett, stating that Reifsehneider was their agent to buy cotton and draw on them in payment therefor. Prior to the 31st of August, 1910, neither of the banks had received any other notice from Iglehart & Co.; but the Bartlett State Bank, the plaintiff in this case, was aware of the fact that they had repudiated the contract made by Reifschneider for the purchase of Beckmann’s cotton, and had refused to accept and pay for the cotton, before the bank acquired Beckmann’s draft on Iglehart & Co.

We do not find it necessary to determine whether or not there was such a holding out of Reifsehneider as their agent as would estop Iglehart & Co. from denying that he was such from March 31st. According to their own testimony, he had been employed by them at a salary of $900 for the cotton season, and was to act as their agent in buying cotton at Bartlett, or anywhere else they chose to send him. Having been employed by them and placed in Bartlett for that purpose, he had the power to bind Iglehart & Co. by contracts for the purchase of cotton until his agency was revoked; and the fact that they told him that they did not want to buy any more cotton, and instructed him not to buy the cotton in question for them, did not, as to Beckmann or any other person, not having notice of the private instructions referred to, constitute a limitation upon Reif-schneider’s power as an agent.

Hence we conclude that, as the trial court’s finding that Reifschneider’s agency had been revoked on the 23d day of March is without evidence to support it, the judgment rendered by that court is correct, and it will be affirmed.

Affirmed.