West v. Wells

• Decision Date: 14 March 1882
• Parties: WEST v. WELLS.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

54 Wis. 525

11 N.W. 677

WEST

v.WELLS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Filed March 14, 1882.

Appeal from circuit court, Clark county.

Action to recover the price of eight tons of hay alleged to have been sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The answer is a general denial. The case is stated in the opinion. Defendant appeals from a judgment against him for the amount of the plaintiff's demand.James O'Neill, for respondent.

R. J. MacBride, for appellant.

LYON, J.

The testimony on the part of the plaintiff tends to show that the hay, to recover the price of which this action was brought, was purchased by the defendant, and that the defendant did not disclose that he was making the purchase for and on the responsibility of another, for whom he was acting as agent. The hay was delivered to one Meeks, who was getting out logs for Mr. Spaulding. The testimony of the defendant tends to show that, although he had some part in purchasing the hay, he was acting for either Meeks or Spaulding, or both, merely as the bearer of messages from them, or one of them, concerning the purchase, and that his relation to the transaction was fully disclosed to the plaintiff, who sold the hay to Meeks or Spaulding, and not to him.

The learned circuit judge instructed the jury as follows: “The plaintiff's counsel claims that Mr. Wells may have so managed the negotiation as to have given the plaintiff the right to understand that he would pay for it, or that the plaintiff might look to the defendant for the pay. It is upon the principle that if he did not, in fact, buy the hay he has misled the plaintiff to his damage. You will consider that question in connection with the other question: Did the defendant buy the hay? Or did he so conduct the negotiation as to give the plaintiff a right to understand that he was making himself responsible for it, and that he might look to him for the pay? If he did either of these things--either bought it or gave the plaintiff the right to understand that he was responsible for the hay, and that he might look to him for the pay--then he should be held responsible for it. But if he did not buy the hay, and if he notified the plaintiff that he was not buying the hay, and that the pay was to come from another source, then he should not be responsible for the hay.”

Assuming that the defendant made the contract with plaintiff for the purchase of the hay and its delivery to Meeks, the controlling question of fact in the...