45 N.W. 443 (Minn. 1890), Eckart v. Roehm

Citation:45 N.W. 443, 43 Minn. 271
Opinion Judge:Dickinson, J.
Party Name:E. J. Eckart and another v. Paul Roehm, Administrator
Attorney:Taylor & Greene, for appellants. W. B. Douglas, for respondent.
Case Date:May 13, 1890
Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Page 443

45 N.W. 443 (Minn. 1890)

43 Minn. 271

E. J. Eckart and another


Paul Roehm, Administrator

Supreme Court of Minnesota

May 13, 1890

Plaintiffs brought this action in a justice's court for Clay county, and recovered a judgment of $ 139.39. An appeal, on questions of fact and law, to the district court for Clay county was tried by Mills, J., (a jury being waived,) who ordered judgment for defendant, which was entered, and the plaintiffs appealed.

Judgment affirmed.

Taylor & Greene, for appellants.

W. B. Douglas, for respondent.


[43 Minn. 272] Dickinson, J.

The defendant, as administrator of the estate of a deceased person, was in possession of, and carrying on, a farm in this state. He, residing in another state, employed an agent to take charge of the farm. The agent was authorized to employ, pay, and discharge farm laborers.

Page 444

He was not authorized to purchase goods on credit except from certain merchants, not including the plaintiffs, with whom the defendant had personally made arrangements for the sale of such goods as the agent should desire to purchase for farm use. The agent purchased clothing of the plaintiffs for the men employed on the farm, on credit of the defendant. The agent, on settlement with the laborers, deducted the price of the goods from their wages. The defendant had no knowledge of the transaction until afterwards, when the agent was found to be indebted to him in the sum of $ 600 on account of money received as foreman. It may be added that the plaintiffs knew that the agent was purchasing goods from the other merchants above referred to, but they did not learn this from the defendant; nor did they make inquiry, nor, so far as appears, did they learn under what agreement such purchases were made, or that they were made on credit.

The case was correctly decided. The agent had not, in fact, any authority to purchase these goods from the plaintiffs on the defendant's credit, and there could be no recovery upon the ground of actual authority. Nor does it appear...

To continue reading