{
  "id": 1374087,
  "name": "Standard Oil Company v. Couch and Stainton",
  "name_abbreviation": "Standard Oil Co. v. Couch & Stainton",
  "decision_date": "1925-11-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "878",
  "last_page": "880",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "169 Ark. 878"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "155 Ark. 623",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1360455
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/155/0623-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 Ark. 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1576796
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/132/0371-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 Ark. 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1538794
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/112/0063-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 255,
    "char_count": 3746,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.452,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05172174130615337
    },
    "sha256": "bbd29eee683eb54d774b5394f0d3dc151f4a63d10bb4ee27c4938e72476ef10a",
    "simhash": "1:a40a944a9c0eac5c",
    "word_count": 652
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:38.667503+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Standard Oil Company v. Couch and Stainton."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Humphreys, J.\nAppellees instituted separate suits against appellant in the circuit court of Ouachita 'County to recover alleged \u00a1balances due them on open account for work done by themselves and teams in excavating an earthen tank to be used in storing crude oil flowing from appellant\u2019s wells in the oil field of said county.\nSeparate answers were filed in each suit by appellant, denying the indebtedness.\nThe cases were consolidated by agreement of counsel representing the parties, and both causes were presented to a jury upon the testimony adduced by appellees and appellant under instructions given by the court, presenting the theory upon which appellees sought a recovery and appellant an exemption from liability.. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of W. Q. Couch for $370.45 and O. J. Stainton for $367.48, upon which judgments were entered. From these judgments an appeal has been duly prosecuted to this court.\nThe only question presented on an appeal for determination grows out of the refusal of the court to instruct a verdict for appellant. It is contended that there is no substantial evidence in the record upon which to base the finding of the jury to the effect that the employment of appellees to do the work was within the apparent scope of the authority of appellant\u2019s agent, who employed them with their teams to assist in digging said earthen tank. According to the undisputed testimony, appellees, with their teams, were employed by Ed Bupple, who was appellant\u2019s foreman in charge of the work. He had actual authority to employ men to work in excavating the earthen tank and to discharge men and teams when through with them, \u00a1but he had no actual authority to hire teams. Bupple admitted that he hired appellees with their teams to do the work, but testified that he told them that he was employing them for H. T. Long, who had a contract to supply J. T. Stiles with men and teams, who, in turn, had a contract to furnish appellant with teams and drivers. Appellees denied that Ed Bupple informed them that he was employing them for H. T. Long or J. E. Stiles. They testified that they did the work under the belief that Ed Rupple employed them on the laecount of appellant.\n\u25a0Summing up and treating the testimony in the most favorable light to appellees, which we must do under the law, appellant\u2019s foreman, who was its general agent, employed appellees with their teams to assist in constructing a tank without first telling them that he was employing them for or on account of H. T. Long.\nThese facts bring the instant case well within the rule announced in the case of Chalmers & Son v. Bowen, 112 Ark. 63, and reaffirmed in the cases of Three States Lumber Co. v. Moore, 132 Ark. 371, and Empire Rice Mill Co. v. Stone, 155 Ark. 623, to the effect that a \u201cprincipal is not only bound by the acts of the lagent done under express authority, but is also bound by all the acts of a general agent which are within the apparent scope of his authority whether they have been authorized by the principal or not, and even if they are contrary to express directions.\u201d\nNo error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Humphreys, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. J. Gaughan, J. T. Sifford, J. E. Gaughan and Elbert Godwin, for appellant.",
      "G. B. II ay me, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Standard Oil Company v. Couch and Stainton.\nOpinion delivered November 16, 1925.\nPrincipal and agent \u2014 apparent authority. \u2014 A principal is bound, \u2022 not only by the acts of the agent which were expressly authorized, but also by all the acts of a general agent which are within the apparent scope of his authority, whether they have been authorized by the principal or not, and even if they are contrary to express directions.\nAppeal from Ouachita Circuit Court; L. 8. Britt, Judge;\naffirmed.\nT. J. Gaughan, J. T. Sifford, J. E. Gaughan and Elbert Godwin, for appellant.\nG. B. II ay me, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0878-01",
  "first_page_order": 898,
  "last_page_order": 900
}