997 S - 997 S.W.2d 829; Posey v. Broughton Farm Co. (Tex....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
997 S.W.2d 829; Posey v. Broughton Farm Co. (Tex. App.); Page 829 Geraldine POSEY, Appellant, v. BROUGHTON FARM COMPANY and Broughton Joint Venture, Appellees. [Cite as Posey v. Broughton Farm Co., 997 S.W.2d 829] No. 11--98--00272--CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Eastland. July 22, 1999. Rehearing Overruled Aug. 26, 1999. Eric Gordon Walraven, H. Grady Terrill, Craig, Terrill & Hale, Lubbock, for appellant. John T. Ferguson, Weaver & Ferguson, P.C., Big Spring, for appellees. Page 830 Panel consists of: ARNOT, C.J., and McCALL, J., and McCLOUD, Senior Judge.(fn*) OPINION TERRY McCALL, Justice. This case involves the sale and delivery of cotton utilizing a cotton purchasing agent. Because the agent was acting for a partially-disclosed principal, we affirm the trial court's summary judgment holding that the agent is personally liable on the contract. Background Facts Geraldine Posey was a cotton purchasing agent who purchases cotton for a number of different buyers; she did not buy cotton for her own account. Scott Underwood contacted Posey in January 1996, requesting that she purchase cotton for him. Shortly thereafter, Broughton Farm Company and Broughton Joint Venture (Broughton) contacted Posey concerning the possible sale of their cotton. Broughton and Posey agreed on a price, and Broughton delivered the warehouse receipts on the cotton to Posey on Friday, January 5, 1996. On Sunday evening, January 7, 1996, Posey sent by bus the warehouse receipts to her principal, Underwood. Posey prepared drafts, drawn on American Cotton Marketing, for the agreed price of the cotton which Broughton did not pick up until January 10 or 11. Underwood did business under the name of American Cotton Marketing. When they were sent to Norwest Bank in Lub-bock, the drafts were not paid.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Posey introduced no evidence to show that she disclosed the name of her principal, Underwood, or the name of American Cotton Marketing to Broughton until it was given the drafts with the name of American Cotton Marketing on them. Underwood's name did not appear on the drafts. The drafts did have Posey's signature on their face as the person approving the issuance of the drafts to Broughton. Even after Broughton picked up the drafts, there was no evidence that Broughton knew of Underwood until after the drafts were not honored by Norwest Bank on January 16. In his deposition, Broughton testified that January 16 was the date when it learned that Underwood was Posey's principal. Broughton acknowledged that it assumed that Posey was buying cotton for some other person. They had dealt with each other on previous occasions, and Broughton knew that Posey had acted for different buyers. On at least one occasion in 1995, Posey's buyer for Broughton's cotton had been American Cotton Marketing.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2011 for the course EMGT 5130 taught by Professor Jeong during the Fall '11 term at UH Clear Lake.

Page1 / 5

997 S - 997 S.W.2d 829; Posey v. Broughton Farm Co. (Tex....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online