Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Polhemus

• Citation: 34 Mich. 247
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 13 June 1876
• Parties: The Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Company v. Jacob A. Polhemus and another

34 Mich. 247

The Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Company v. Jacob A. Polhemus and another

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 13, 1876

Submitted on Briefs April 20, 1876

Error to Washtenaw Circuit.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.

Joslin & Whitman, for plaintiff in error.

Frazer & Hamilton, for defendants in error.

OPINION

Graves, J.

The circuit court adjudged the plaintiff in error liable to defendants in error in a suit on the common counts for horse keeping and livery hire, and error is alleged.

The company, through their general agent, F. A. VanBuren bargained with one Wissler to sell their sewing machines in Washtenaw county and vicinity, on the following understanding: they were to provide him a room in Ann Arbor a horse and buggy and the machines, and he was to sell the machines and have thirty per cent. commission as compensation. The room and horse and buggy were provided, and machines as needed were supplied, and he prosecuted the business for some time under the arrangement. He called on defendants in error and contracted with them specially to board the horse, and they did so for several months and sometimes used the animal with his assent. He also got livery of them at various times. He informed them in the beginning that the company owned the horse. They charged the entire account for horse keeping and livery directly against him, and he paid them the larger portion of it. The recovery allowed against the company was for the balance of this entire account. As their witness, he swore that if he had paid it he would not have been entitled to ask the company to reimburse him. According to the record there was not the least ground for claiming that he had authority to get the horse boarded or obtain livery on the credit of the company, or that the company held him out as having such power, or ever assumed in any form the liability therefor, or did any thing to make the liability their own. Moreover there would seem to have been no proper evidence that he contracted on company account, or any lawful evidence legitimately tending to show that defendants in error gave credit to any body except Wissler. Some evidence was admitted that when he called to get the horse boarded he stated it was for the company. But he could not invest himself with authority to bind the company by such statements. Were the rule otherwise, the fortune of every man would rest on the...