Best v. Krey
| Decision Date | 19 April 1901 |
| Docket Number | 12,604 - (21) |
| Citation | 85 N.W. 822,83 Minn. 32 |
| Parties | EDWIN C. BEST v. NICHOLAS KREY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover the sum of $139.25. The case was tried before Brill, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict for defendant. From an order denying a motion for a new trial or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Evidence of Agent's Authority.
The acts and conduct of an agent with reference to his principal's business constitute competent evidence to establish, by implication, authority in such agent to perform acts which are not expressly authorized, without regard to knowledge thereof by the principal. Columbia Mill Co. v National Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224, followed.
Indorsement of Check by Agent.
The agent was employed for the express purpose of collecting accounts and selling goods. In practice, he indorsed checks payable to the order of his principal, and purchased goods for the house. Held, the evidence as to such course of selling was sufficient to sustain the conclusion that the agent was authorized to indorse the check upon which this action is founded.
C. M. Ferguson, for appellant.
L. J. Dobner, for respondent.
Appellant, Edwin C. Best, was engaged in the commission business under the name of E.C. Best & Co., at Minneapolis, and conducted a branch house in St. Paul under the management of one Tomlinson. About September 1, 1897, he employed a man by the name of Waynick for the express purpose of collecting accounts and selling goods for the St. Paul house. On October 9, following, Waynick received from one Parshall a check for $139.25, payable to the order of E.C. Best & Co., which he sold to the respondent, and received the face value thereof in money, but failed to account for it to his principal. This action is brought by the principal to recover the amount of the check, and, the trial having resulted adversely to plaintiff, an appeal was taken from the order of the court denying a motion for a new trial.
There are but two questions requiring the court's attention: First, the ruling of the court in admitting certain testimony as to the indorsement and collection by Waynick of checks payable to the order of appellant; second, was there any evidence in the case reasonably tending to support the verdict?
1. It being conceded that at the time Waynick was employed his authority was expressly limited to the collection of accounts and the sale of goods, it became necessary for respondent to show that, at the time he indorsed the check for $139.25 and received the money, he had authority so to do, either express or implied, at a date subsequent to his employment. In order to establish such authority, respondent called a witness by whom he showed that, during the five or six weeks Waynick was in appellant's employ, it was his habit to receive checks from appellant's customers, made payable to E.C. Best & Co. or order, indorse them, receive the money thereon, and use this money in the purchase of goods for appellant's benefit. It was to this testimony that appellant objected upon the ground that such indorsement and collection...
To continue reading
Request your trial