(180 P.)

of the Central Electric Company, against the Duncan Electric & Ice Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

[3, 4] There is not any merit in the claim | style that the verdict is not supported by the evidence, for the evidence introduced by the plaintiff reasonably tends to prove that all of his crop was damaged by hail in the amount found by the jury and collectable under the terms of the policy.

Hainer, Burns & Toney, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Womack & Brown, of Duncan, for defendants in error.

PITCHFORD, J. This action was com

The court instructed the jury that if it found for the plaintiff that it allow him interest at 6 per cent. from December 1, 1916, on the amount so found, and it is urged by the defendant that said instruction is viola-menced in the county court of Stephens countive of section 2848, Rev. Laws of 1910. In ty, Okl., wherein the defendants in error the case of City of Chickasha v. Hollings- filed their petition against the plaintiff in worth, 56 Okl. 341, 155 Pac. 859, this court held that interest was not recoverable on unliquidated damages, where it was necessary for a judgment on verdict to be rendered in order to ascertain the amount of such damage. The instruction was therefore erroneous, and the judgment was excessive

in the small amount of the interest so allowed, which is less than $5.

error, seeking the recovery of the sum of $165 and interest thereon for certain work done by the former for the latter. When

After

the cause came on for trial, a jury was waiv-
ed, and the case tried to the court.
hearing the evidence and argument of coun-
sel, among other things the court found as

follows:

"That the principal allegations of the plaintiff The judgment will therefore be modified herein are true. The court finds that the plainby deducting therefrom interest on the dam-tiff herein is a partnership composed of J. H. ages allowed from December 1, 1916, to the Dickey, Jr., and E. Medford, and that the dedate of the verdict, which was April 17, is a corporation, organized under the laws of the fendant, the Duncan Electric & Ice Company, 1917, and as so modified, will be affirmed.

HARDY, C. J., and OWEN, PITCHFORD, and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

DUNCAN ELECTRIC & ICE CO. v. DICKEY et al. (No. 8159.)

(Supreme Court of Oklahoma. April 24, 1919.)

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT 155(4)-AGENT'S UNAUTHORIZED CONTRACT - PERSONAL LIA

BILITY.

One who uses another's name must know whether he has authority, and, if he uses it without authority in contracting an indebtedness, he must be held personally liable for the indebtedness, no matter what his intentions may be in the matter.

(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.) 2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 254-AGENCY -EVIDENCE.

Evidence, in action by foreign firm to recover against domestic electric and ice company for repairs on motor furnished by a city to company for pumping water, held not to sustain a defense that company was acting for the city in having motor repaired so as to require city to pay for repairs.

Error from County Court, Stephens County; J. W. Marshall, Judge.

Action by J. H. Dickey and E. Medford, doing business under the firm name and

state of Oklahoma. The court further finds that plaintiff, at the special instance and request on or about the 18th day of March, 1912, the of the defendant, performed services and labor, and furnished supplies to the defendant of the value of $165; that no part of sum has been paid, and the court further finds that the said defendant, the Duncan Electric & Ice Company Company in the sum of $165, with interest is indebted to the plaintiff the Central Electric thereon from the 18th day of March, 1912, at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum until paid.”

The parties will be designated as they appeared in the court below. The specifications of error relied on are: trial court erred in rendering judgment (1) That the sufficient evidence to support said finding and against it for the reason that there was not judgment; (2) that the trial court erred in rendering judgment against it for the reason that the evidence conclusively shows that said decision is contrary to law, to wit, the evidence affirmatively showing that there was no contract existing between it and the defendant in error, either implied or expressed; (3) that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

It appears from the evidence that the defendants had entered into a contract with the city of Duncan for the purpose of supplying electric current for operating motor for pumping water necessary for the use of said city and the inhabitants thereof. It was further stipulated in the contract that the city of Duncan was to install a new motor for the purpose of pumping the water. The contract was silent as to who should pay for repairs that might be found necessary on

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

(180 P.)

for the city, but for the defendant company, | and that the plaintiffs were looking to the defendant for the charges made for the work.

LOVE et al. v. BOYLE, Chief Mine Inspector of Oklahoma. (No. 9858.)

When Mr. Dickey, a member of the plain (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Feb. 18, 1919.

tiff company, was on the witness stand, he testified that the first knowledge he ever had that the motor was not the property of the defendant company was when he read the letter in which the defendant quoted from the letter of January 26, 1912. The defendant knew at the time the motor was returned that the plaintiffs were looking to the defendant for payment, and not only failed to remit, but failed to acknowledge the receipt of the motor, or to disclaim personal liability for the charges for the work. If the defendant claimed to act for the city of Duncan in having the repairs made, the burden of proof when sued was to establish the fact that it acted within the scope of its authority, and had been authorized by the city to have the motor repaired at the expense of the city. There was no effort at the trial on the part of the defendant to establish this fact, but it seems to have de fended upon the theory that, having notified the Wesco Supply Company that the motor belonged to the city, and that the bill must be sent to the city, it thereby escaped liability,

When the defendant shipped the motor in the first instance and requested that the bill for the work be sent to the city of Duncan, the defendant was presumed to know whether the city had authorized the shipment, and whether or not the city would be liable for the charges for making the repairs, and if it afterwards appeared that the shipment was not authorized and the charges were not to be paid by the city, then the defendant would be liable to the plaintiffs no matter what the intentions of the defendant might have been in the premises.

[1, 2] It is a well-settled principle of law that one claiming to be an agent of another, if he does not possess authority from the principal therefor, or if he exceeds his authority, will be personally liable to the person with whom he is dealing. People's Bank v. Frick Co., 13 Okl. 179, 73 Pac. 949; McConnell v. Holderman, 24 Okl. 129, 103 Pac. 593; Haupt v. Vint, 68 W. Va. 657, 70 S. E. 702, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 518; Mendenhall v. Stewart, 18 Ind. App. 262, 47 N. E.

943.

The city of Duncan claimed that the defendant was not acting for the city, that it had no authority to make the contract attempting to bind the city, and that the city was under no obligations to the defendant to pay for the repairs made. We are of the opinion that there is abundant evidence to sustain the finding of the trial court. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Rehearing Denied May 13, 1919.)

(Syllabus by the Court.

1. MINES AND MINERALS 93-ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS-POWERS OF CHIEF MINE INSPECTOR.

The Constitution does not expressly or by. necessary implication confer on the chief mine inspector jurisdiction to enforce the laws enacted (chapters 25 and 197, Sess. Laws 1915) to conserve and prevent the waste of crude oil or natural gas, and to regulate the equitable taking of same from a common source of supby common purchasers thereof, or impose any ply, and the equitable purchase of natural gas duties in relation thereto to be performed exclusively by that officer.

2. MINES AND MINERALS 93- GENERAL MINE INSPECTOR-ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.

The Constitution does not expressly or by necessary implication confer on the chief mine inspector jurisdiction to enforce the laws enacted (chapter 53, art. 3, §§ 4319 to 4331, R. L. 1910) to regulate the use and preservation of natural gas, drilling wells for oil and gas, piping, storage, or purchase thereof, or to superintend the plugging of dry or abandoned oil thereto to be performed exclusively by that or gas wells, or impose any duties in relation officer. The Constitution neither expressly nor by necessary implication imposes any limitation on the power of the Legislature to transfer to some other officer or department any jurisdiction conferred or duty imposed by statute on the chief mine inspector in relation thereto. 3. MINES AND MINERALS 93-CHIEF MINE INSPECTOR-DUTIES-CONSTITUTIONAL PRO

VISIONS.

Article 25, § 13 (Williams, § 377), of the schedule to the Constitution imposed the duties of territorial oil inspector on the chief mine inspector only until otherwise provided by law. There is no express or necessarily implied constitutional limitation on the power of the Legand transfer to some other officer or department islature to take from the chief mine inspector the jurisdiction and duty, under chapter 53, art. 4, §§ 4332 to 4359, R. L. 1910, as amended by chapter 96, Session Laws 1915, p. 149, to inspect oils and other liquid products of petroleum known as burning oil or kerosene and gasoline manufactured or offered for sale in the state for illuminating, heating, or power pur

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
180 P.-45

Walker, as Chief Conservation Agent. Demurrer to petition overruled, and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to sustain demurrer and dismiss the action.

S. P. Freeling, Atty. Gen., Hunter L. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Paul A. Walker, of Oklahoma City, for the Corporation Commission.

The matter of conservation of oil and gas, drilling and operating oil and gas wells, plugging abandoned wells, the inspection of oils and other liquid products of petroleum, etc., and the fees therefor, and the duties of various officers in relation thereto, are regulated by several statutes of the state enacted from time to time by the Legislature.

In the order of enactment, the first of these acts is that of the legislative assembly of

Burns & Toney, of Oklahoma City, for de- the territory of Oklahoma, being chapter 17, fendant in error.

Session Laws 1903, pp. 180 to 195, entitled, "An act to provide for the inspection of oils, the appointment and compensation of inspec tors, and for other purposes." This act, as amended by article 20, § 2, Williams', § 345, of the Constitution, was by virtue of the Schedule to the Constitution (article 25, § 2, Williams', § 366) brought over and extended in force in the state. The office of territorial

MILEY, J. The questions that require our consideration and determination in this case are whether the authority and duties in reference to the inspection of oils and liquid products of petroleum, manufactured or offered for sale in this state, for illuminating, heating, and power purposes, the conservation of oil and gas, drilling and operating oil inspector of oils provided for in that act was and gas wells, and plugging abandoned wells, not continued after statehood, and the duties appertain to the oil and gas department imposed on that officer were, by virtue of the Schedule to the Constitution (article 25, § 13, created, and inspectors appointed, pursuant to chapter 207, Session Laws 1917, under the Williams', § 377) to be performed by the chief jurisdiction and supervision of the Corpora- mine inspector until otherwise provided by tion Commission, or to the office of chief in-law. A revision of this act was incorporated spector of mines, oil and gas, created by the in the Revised Laws of 1910 as chapter 53, Certain secart. 4, §§ 4332 to 4359 thereof. Constitution (section 25, art. 6, Williams', § tions of the statute were amended by chapter 174), the incumbent of which is known as 96, Session Laws 1915, pp. 149 to 152: The chief mine inspector. Asserting that such authority and jurisdic-oil and liquid products of petroleum known revised statute as amended provides that all

tion belong to and the duties thereof devolve

solely upon his office, the defendant in error, being the duly elected and qualified chief mine inspector, as plaintiff below, brought this action, alleging that the plaintiffs in error, defendants below, who were respectively the duly elected, qualified, and acting Corporation Commissioners, and the duly ap

whatever name called, which may be or can as burning oil or kerosene and gasoline, by be used for illuminating, heating, or power purposes, manufactured in this state, or brought into it, shall be inspected by an authorized inspector of this state before the to be sold or disposed of to merchants, consame are consumed, used, or sold, or offered sumers, or other persons within the state. The state mine inspector was made the ex officio gauger of liquids used for illuminating, heating, or power purposes, and authoriz

pointed acting and qualified chief oil and gas conservation agent, in charge of the oil and gas department of the commission, together with their numerous servants, agents, assistants, and employés, whose names were to him unknown, were unlawfully assuming to ex-ed to appoint and assign for duty deputy ercise jurisdiction and authority in the premises, and performing duties in relation thereto, and collecting fees prescribed by law, and interfering with and hindering the plaintiff and his deputies and assistants in the discharge of their duties, and prayed that the defendants and their said agents, servants, and employés be enjoined and restrained from so doing. The defendants demurred to the petition, the demurrer was overruled, and, the defendants declining to plead further, a final judgment was rendered against them, from which they have appealed to this court. The death of plaintiff in error J. E. Love having been suggested, and the appointment of plaintiff in error A. L. Walker as his successor, and of a successor to A. L. Walker as chief oil and gas conservation agent having been made known to the court, by agreement an order has been made for the substi

oil inspectors at any point where there are located tank stations or refineries. The law further provides the manner of testing oils and other of said liquids, for the approval or condemnation thereof after test, for branding the result of the actual test on the package, barrel, or casks containing the same, and of such as are found to be unsafe and rejected. The act prohibits the sale of uninspected or condemned oils, prescribes penalties for hindering inspection, prescribes the fees to be charged for inspection and the amount thereof to be retained by the deputy inspector; provides for records to be kept by the inspectors and reports thereof to be made to the chief mine inspector, and for annual reports by the chief mine inspector to the Governor; and provides penalties for misconduct of inspectors and for making false tests.

(180 P.)

Session Laws 1909, which was slightly powered to hear and determine complaints of revised, and incorporated in the Revised any person with reference to the enforcement Laws of 1910, as chapter 53, art. 3, §§ 4319 to of the act, and provides for appeals from the 4331. The original was entitled, "An act to orders of the Corporation Commission to the regulate the use and preservation of oil and Supreme Court. gas and providing penalties for the violation thereof, providing for an inspector, his duties, compensation and appropriation therefor and declaring an emergency." The act as revised provides, in substance, that any well producing natural gas, in order to prevent the said gas from wasting by escape, shall immediately, after penetrating the gas-bearing rock, be shut in and confined in the well until and during such time as the gas therein shall be utilized for lights, fuel, or power purposes. The act contains other provisions designed to prevent the unnecessary use and waste of natural gas and the pollution of stock water with oil and the refuse from tanks and wells. The act further provides that all dry and abandoned oil and gas wells, in which oil or gas-bearing stratum has been found, shall be plugged in the manner therein prescribed under the supervision of the oil and gas inspector therein provided for. The chief mine inspector was authorized to appoint such deputies, possessing certain qualifications, as necessary for performance of the duties required by law. It was made the duty of the chief mine inspector and his deputies to personally supervise the using and operating of natural gas and the proper observance of the laws of the state dealing with the drilling and production of oil and gas or the piping or storage or purchase or use thereof within the state. A record is required to be kept of all oil and gas wells and dry holes plugged in accordance with the provisions of the act, containing certain information to be supplied by the lessee or operator at the time the well was plugged.

The next act is chapter 25, Session Laws 1915, p. 35, entitled, "An act defining and prohibiting the waste of crude oil or petroleum, providing for the equitable taking of the same from the ground and conferring authority on the Corporation Commission, prescribing the penalty for the violation of this act and declaring an emergency." This act prohibits the production of crude oil under such conditions as to constitute waste, defines waste, and authorizes the Corporation Commission to regulate the taking of crude oil from any common source of supply, so as to prevent the inequitable or unfair taking thereof, and to prevent discrimination in favor of one common source of supplies as against another. The act authorizes a gauge to be taken of any well under rules and regulations prescribed by the Corporation Commission. It also authorizes and directs the Commission to make and promulgate such other rules and regulations, and to employ or appoint such agents with the consent of the Governor, as may be necessary to enforce the act. The commission was further em

The next act is chapter 197, Session Laws 1915, p. 398, being entitled, "An act to conserve natural gas in the state of Oklahoma, to prevent waste thereof, providing for the equitable taking and purchase of same, conferring authority on the Corporation Commission, prescribing a penalty for violation of this act, repealing certain acts, and declaring an emergency." This act makes unlawful the production of natural gas in such manner and under such conditions as to constitute waste, defines waste, and provides that when natural gas in commercial quantities, or gasbearing stratum known to contain natural gas in such quantities, is encountered in any well, such gas shall be confined to the original stratum until such time as the same can be produced and utilized without waste, and that all such strata shall be adequately protected from infiltrating waters. The act regulates the taking of natural gas when the supply is in excess of market demands, a common purchaser of natural gas is defined, and such purchasers are prohibited from discriminating in favor of one producer against another, or in favor of one source of supply as against another. The Corporation Commission is given authority and power to conduct hearings, and make additional regulations for the prevention of the waste of natural gas and for the protection of oil or gas-bearing strata, and to further regulate the taking and the purchase of gas by common purchasers. The Commission, with the consent of the Governor, was also authorized to employ agents necessary to enforce the act. The act further provides that nothing therein contained shall be construed to interfere with any duties imposed by law on the chief mine inspector of the state, or his deputies.

The next act to be considered is chapter 207, Session Laws 1917, p. 385, entitled, "An act providing for the creation of an oil and gas department under the jurisdiction of the Corporation Commission, authorizing the Corporation Commission to appoint a chief oil and gas conservation agent, and conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Corporation Commission in reference to the conservation of oil and gas, and the inspection of gasoline and oil, the product of crude petroleum, and repealing all acts or parts of acts in conflict therewith, and declaring an emergency." Under this act, the jurisdiction and duty to inspect oils and liquid products of petroleum under chapter 53, art. 4, R. L. 1910, as amended by chapter 96, Session Laws 1915, p. 149, was taken from the chief mine inspector and deputies appointed by him and conferred upon the Corporation Commission. The commission was authorized, with the approval of