Eckart v. Roehm
| Decision Date | 13 May 1890 |
| Citation | 45 N.W. 443,43 Minn. 271 |
| Parties | ECKART ET AL. v ROEHM. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. The rule of law that a principal is not bound by the acts of an agent which were not authorized, and which the other party was not justified in believing to have been authorized, applied in the case of the purchase of goods on the credit of the principal.
2. The fact that the agent so purchasing the goods applied them to the payment of debts of the principal to other persons, without his consent or knowledge, the agent having been provided with funds for the payment of such debts, does not make the principal liable.
Appeal from district court, Clay county; MILLS, Judge.
Taylor & Greene, for appellants.
W.B. Douglas, for respondent.
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.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 he did not learn this from the defendant; nor did he make inquiry, nor, so far as appears, did he 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 that the defendant's conduct, or the authority actually given to and exercised by the agent, justified the plaintiffs in assuming, without inquiry, that the agent had a general authority to purchase such goods, and on credit. The plaintiffs did not even know, so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
I. J. Bartlett Co. v. Ness
...15, 1921. If plaintiff had desired to go back to the original sales contract, the correct procedure is suggested in Eckart v. Roehm, 43 Minn. 271, 45 N. W. 443. In Cowles v. Canfield, 49 Minn. 496, 52 N. W. 135, a suit to foreclose a mortgage substituted for a former mortgage securing the s......
-
I. J. Bartlett Co. v. Ness
... ... If ... plaintiff had desired to go back to the original sales ... contract, the correct procedure is suggested in Eckhart ... v. Roehm, 43 Minn. 270, 45 N.W. 443. In Cowles v ... Canfield, 49 Minn. 496, 52 N.W. 135, a suit to foreclose ... a mortgage substituted for a former ... ...
-
Johnson v. Ogren (In re Johnson)
...an action for money had and received will lie for its recovery. Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238, 13 N. W. 42. The case of Eckart v. Roehm, 43 Minn. 271, 45 N. W. 443, relied upon by appellant, is not in point; for the facts of this case are essentially different than were the facts in the c......
-
Johnson v. Ogren
...an action for money had and received will lie for its recovery. Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238, 13 N.W. 42. The case of Eckart v. Roehm, 43 Minn. 271, 45 N.W. 443, relied upon by appellant, is not in point; for the facts this case are essentially different than were the facts in the case c......