Kikugawa

This appeal is by the defendant from a judgment against him for $300 in an action to recover for labor and material used in the repair of defendant’s automobile at the special instance and request of defendant. The contract for the repairs was made with the plaintiff by the son of the defendant and the court has found that the labor and materials were of the actual and reasonable value of $300. The only question presented is as to the agency of the defendant’s son, appellant contending that the facts appearing in the record fail to establish either an actual or ostensible agency or to show a ratification of an unauthorized act.

It appears that defendant’s son, Charles, was entrusted with the entire use, management, operation, and control of the automobile in question; that he was authorized to engage storage for it and to purchase .gasoline and oil, all of which he did at the garage of the plaintiff. For several months defendant paid the hills for these items, as contracted for by Charles, without objection. During this period Charles had windshields placed upon the car by the plaintiff and it was understood that they were to he removed without charge if the defendant did not…