Liquidating vs. Non Liquidating Distribution

Disclaimer |

COLUMBIA OUTFITTING COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. B. H. FREEMAN, Appellant

S. F. No. 18091

Supreme Court of California

36 Cal. 2d 216; 223 P.2d 21; 1950 Cal. LEXIS 231

October 24, 1950

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:  [***1]  Appellant's Petition for a Rehearing was Denied November 20, 1950.

PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Ben R. Ragain, Judge. ** Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.

DISPOSITION: Affirmed. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant collection agent appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which held that plaintiff store was not liable to the collection agent under a written contract. |

OVERVIEW: Each year the collection agent would orally agree with the store to collect its delinquent accounts. In the year in question, the store's new credit manager entered into a written contract with the collection agent without advising officers of the store. A disagreement arose, and the store recalled its accounts from the collection agent. The store refused to honor the written agreement and filed an action for amounts collected and not remitted. The collection agent cross-complained for payment on the recalled accounts. The trial court found in favor of the store. On appeal, the court affirmed. The court ruled that the credit manager did not have implied authority because he did not believe that he had such authority because he sought authority to recall accounts and he had no office. The court ruled that the collection agent did not believe that the credit manager had authority to bind the store because the written agreement was entirely different from previous oral agreements with the store. The court ruled that the store did not ratify the agreement because it refused to honor the agreement and claimed nothing under it. |

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the store and...