{ "id": 1653035, "name": "Wright v. Harris", "name_abbreviation": "Wright v. Harris", "decision_date": "1953-11-23", "docket_number": "5-205", "first_page": "661", "last_page": "663", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "222 Ark. 661" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "262 S.W.2d 142" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "197 Ark. 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8719991 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/197/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 Ark. 222", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1890460 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/46/0222-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 309, "char_count": 4132, "ocr_confidence": 0.508, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08, "percentile": 0.47043958933513114 }, "sha256": "f3d9b11738fbcbc162f93416cc2493fa37dcf55a7f1ec336bca0584640bbea58", "simhash": "1:bafde8e116ae063a", "word_count": 704 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:48:42.003901+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justice McFaddin not participating." ], "parties": [ "Wright v. Harris." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "J. Seaborn Holt, J.\nJuly 2, 1952, a truck alleged to be owned by appellant, Fred Wright, and driven by Richard Russell, an alleged employee of appellant, on Highway 71, south of Wilton, Ark., \u00a3\u00a3sideswiped\u201d a Ford truck driven by appellee, Harris, resulting in such serious injuries to appellee that his left arm had to be amputated. Appellee sued Fred'Wright for damages and a jury awarded him $5,585. This appeal followed.\nFor reversal, appellant argues (1) that the court erred in giving its Instruction No. 1, (2) in refusing to instruct a verdict for appellant at the close of all the evidence, because the testimony showed that the truck in question was \u2018 \u2018 owned by Wright Lumber Company, Inc., a corporation, and was being driven, on a mission for said corporation, by one of the corporation\u2019s employees, Richard Russell; or, conversely, because there is no legally competent evidence in the record tending to prove that the truck was owned by defendant, Fred Wright, the President of the corporation, or that Russell was an employee of Fred Wright or was on any mission whatsoever for said Wright when appellee received his injury. (Si) That the court erred in admitting certain testimony, hereinafter discussed, over the objections and exceptions of the appellant.\u201d\nThe conclusion that we have reached makes it necessary for us to consider only whether the admission of the testimony \u2014 presently set out \u2014 to which appellant objected and excepted, constituted prejudicial error. We hold that it did, in the circumstances, and that the judgment must be reversed on this account.\nAppellee\u2019s witness, Milton Mosier of the State Police, on direct examination, testified that, on learning of the collision between the two trucks involved, he, in company with the sheriff and Jack Jennings, went to the point where the collision happened, to investigate, and in this connection testified: \u201cI was checking one of the trucks and Jack and the sheriff were checking the other one, and one of them found blood on the bunker and I went back there and examined it and I found cloth and blood and flesh on the bunker of the Bussell truck. Q. Who was driving the truck? A. Bichard Bussell. Q. Did he tell you who he worked for? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who was that? BY MB. SHAYEB: I object. BY THE COUBT: Overruled. BY MB. SHAYEB: Save my exceptions. A. Fred Wright.\u201d\nMosier further testified that he contacted appellant, Fred Wright, either the following day or shortly thereafter, and that Fred Wright told him that it was his (Wright\u2019s) truck that was involved.\nBearing in mind that the question of ownership of the truck driven by Bussell and whom he, Bussell, represented, was a hotly contested issue in the case, appellant asserting that the truck was owned by Wright Lumber Co., Inc., and driven by its employee, Bussell, and appellee contending that the truck was owned by appellant, Fred Wright, individually, and driven by his agent, Bus-sell, it seems obvious that the testimony of Mosier to the effect that Bussell told him that he (Bussell) was driving Wright\u2019s truck at the time of the collision, if admissible \u2014 and we hold that it was not \u2014 strongly supported appellee\u2019s contention that the truck belonged to Wright, that Russell was Wright\u2019s agent, and therefore any liability would fall on Wright and not the company.\nNo rule of law appears to be better settled than that neither agency nor the extent of the agent\u2019s authority may be proved by his own declarations or actions, as was attempted here. This court said in the early case of Turner v. Huff, et al., 46 Ark. 222: \u201cAn agency cannot be proved by the declarations of the agent in pais, and in the absence of the party to be affected by them. 2 Wharton on Evidence, Sec. 1183.\u201d See also Standard Mutual Benefit Corp. v. State, 197 Ark. 333, 122 S. W. 2d 459.\nFor the error indicated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.\nJustice McFaddin not participating.", "type": "majority", "author": "J. Seaborn Holt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Talbot Field, Jr., and Shaver, Tackett <& Jones, for appellant.", "W. S. Atkins and Bobby Steel, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Wright v. Harris.\n5-205\n262 S. W. 2d 142\nOpinion delivered November 23, 1953.\nTalbot Field, Jr., and Shaver, Tackett <& Jones, for appellant.\nW. S. Atkins and Bobby Steel, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0661-01", "first_page_order": 685, "last_page_order": 687 }