Sumner v. Knighton

Louisiana Court of Appeal
1 So.2d 142, 1941 La. App. LEXIS 103 (1941)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under Louisiana Civil Code Article 2997, an agent's authority to execute promissory notes on behalf of a principal must be express and special; implied authority exists only if the main object of the agency specifically requires the exercise of that power.

Facts:

Mrs. Knighton owned the Dubberly Mercantile Company.
She employed Q.Z. Clements to manage the store under a written management agreement.
While acting as manager, Clements executed two promissory notes in the store's name: one to Peoples Bank & Trust and one to E.T. Sumner.
E.T. Sumner acquired the bank note and held the note made out to him, totaling $450 in principal.
Clements claimed he borrowed the funds for store operations.
Sumner also sold hay to the store for which a balance of $27.60 remained unpaid.
Mrs. Knighton sold the business to Phillip Holley & Son without complying with the Bulk Sales Law.

Procedural Posture:

Sumner sued Knighton and the partnership Phillip Holley & Son in the district court.
The district court rejected Sumner's demands regarding the promissory notes.
The district court granted judgment in favor of Sumner for the $27.60 hay claim.
The district court ruled Phillip Holley & Son liable as receivers for the hay claim due to Bulk Sales Law violations.
Sumner appealed the rejection of the note claims to this court.
The defendants answered the appeal, arguing the district court should have rejected all of Sumner's demands.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a store manager possess the authority to execute promissory notes binding the store owner when the management agreement authorizes him to 'sign all contracts and checks' but does not explicitly authorize borrowing money?

Opinions:

Majority - The Court

No. The general authority to manage a business and sign contracts does not include the specific power to bind the principal to promissory notes. The court reasoned that under Civil Code Article 2997, authority to execute commercial paper must be 'express and special.' While the management agreement allowed Clements to 'sign all contracts,' the court interpreted this to mean contracts in the usual course of business, not loan agreements. Additionally, the court rejected the argument that such authority was implied, noting that managing a small-town mercantile store does not inherently require borrowing funds. The court also denied the unjust enrichment claim because Sumner failed to prove the borrowed money actually benefited Mrs. Knighton.

Analysis:

This case reinforces the strict interpretation of agency law regarding financial liability. By affirming that general management powers do not automatically include the power to borrow money or sign notes, the court protects business owners from unauthorized debts incurred by employees. It places the burden on lenders to verify that an agent has specific, express authority from the principal before advancing funds on a promissory note. The decision distinguishes between routine operational contracts and significant financial obligations like loans.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Sumner v. Knighton (1941)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"