#### THE OBSERVER COMPANY v. REMEDY SALES CORPORATION.

(Filed 5 May, 1915.)

1. Principal and Agent — Evidence of Agency — 'Ratification.

The statement by the secretary and treasurer of a corporation that an account rendered to it was correct is some evidence of the authorized act of one having made the contract to hind the company thereto as its agent.

2. Principal and Agent — Evidence of Agency — Books.

Where a corporation is sought to be bound as principal for the acts of another, it is not reversible error for the trial judge to refuse to strike out the testimony of a witness, on the question of agency, that it was understood that the one acting was the authorized agent, when the corporation books, introduced in evidence, discloses that he was such agent at the time.

3. Principal and Agent — Appeal and Error — Harmless Error.

A corporation sought to be bound by the acts of one purporting to be its agent, it is not reversible error for the judge to charge the jury that a person may act as the agent for half a dozen corporations, and, apart from the fact of its being true in this case, it could not have affected the verdict.

Appeab by defendant from Shaiu, J., at November Term, 1914, of MeckleNbueg.

Action to recover tbe amount of an account for advertising.

There was a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant excepted and appealed.

Thaddeus A. Adams for plaintiff.

Flowers & Jones for defendant.

Pee Cueiam:.

We have carefully examined the exceptions relied on by the defendant and find no reversible error.

The admission of the correctness of the account, when it was presented to the defendant, by Mr. Powers, who was then its secretary, treasurer, *252and general manager, was sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury, and there was other evidence tending to sustain tbe plaintiff’s claim.

Tbe letter of Guy Y. Barnes was competent, but its effect was dependent upon tbe evidence introduced to show bis authority to bind tbe defendant or of ratification by tbe defendant.

Tbe statement by Powers, that be understood that Barnes was manager of tbe defendant company prior to tbe time be became manager, was objectionable as hearsay; but no barm came to tbe defendant from tbe refusal to strike out this evidence, because tbe books of tbe company were admitted in evidence, and they showed that Barnes bad been manager, and tbe date of bis election. ’

Tbe statement of bis Honor, during tbe argument of tbe defendant for a judgment of nonsuit, that one man could represent one-balf dozen different corporations, was true, and in any event could not have affected tbe verdict.

No error.