## Facts

- Homer Ruth owned the business performing work connected with a stone-quarry operation.
- A foreman at the quarry hired James S. Evans to perform work involving the hauling and delivery of stone.
- As Evans performed the work, each load of stone was weighed and recorded on written documentation.
- The load documentation was prepared so that both Ruth and Evans received copies, allowing Ruth to track the loads attributed to Evans’s work.
- After Evans completed the work, he presented his bill to Ruth and sought payment.
- Ruth acknowledged that Evans had completed the work and stated he would pay Evans.
- Ruth nevertheless did not pay Evans as promised and later offered to pay only 53 percent of the amount Evans claimed was due.
- Ruth denied that he had a contractual obligation to Evans and contended that an independent subcontractor, George Darr, was responsible for most of the job and for payment.
- Evans sued Ruth in assumpsit to recover the unpaid amount for his work.
- Evans obtained judgment in his favor in the trial court, and Ruth appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Ruth became bound to pay Evans by ratifying a foreman’s unauthorized hiring of Evans through Ruth’s later acknowledgement of the work and promise to pay.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the judgment for Evans.
- The court held that Ruth’s words and conduct after the work was done permitted a finding that Ruth ratified the foreman’s act of employing Evans, making Ruth liable as though the hiring had been authorized at the outset.

## Legal Principles

- A principal who, with knowledge of material facts, affirms an act done on the principal’s behalf by someone lacking authority ratifies that act.
- Ratification relates back to the time of the original transaction and supplies authority as if it existed when the agent acted.
- Ratification may be shown by express statements (such as a promise to pay for the work) or by conduct consistent with treating the transaction as the principal’s own.
- Ratification does not require new consideration because it is not treated as a new bargain; it is an affirmance of the earlier act.

## Conclusion

Because Ruth received documentation of Evans’s loads, acknowledged that Evans completed the work, and promised payment, the evidence supported the trial court’s finding (accepted by the jury) that Ruth affirmed and ratified the foreman’s hiring of Evans, so Ruth was responsible for the amount owed for Evans’s work despite Ruth’s claim that a subcontractor was the true obligor.


Evans v. Ruth, 195 A. 163 (1937)