Estey v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 29 April 1890
• Citation: 76 Wis. 624,45 N.W. 415
• Parties: ESTEY ET AL. v. SNYDER.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

76 Wis. 624

45 N.W. 415

ESTEY ET AL.

v.SNYDER.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 29, 1890.

Appeal from circuit court, Waukesha county.

D. H. Sumner, for appellants.

C. E. Armin,

( F. C. Park, of counsel,) for respondent.

COLE, C. J.

The only litigated question in this case was, had the agent Hills authority to collect from the defendant money secured by the chattel mortgage, and to discharge the obligation, so as to bind the plaintiffs by his acts in that regard? If he had such authority expressly conferred, or if the plaintiffs had permitted him to collect money due and unpaid for organs which he had sold, and it was customary for him to collect such money, then there was no error in the trial court directing a verdict for the defendant; for in that event it is evident that the defendant was the owner of the property in controversy, and entitled to its possession, the fact not being disputed that he had fully paid Hills for it. It does not appear from the evidence that any specific restrictions were placed upon Hills' authority in collecting moneys, the payment of which was secured by chattel mortgages, but the proof is clear and decisive that he had often collected money on such instruments. The principal witness for the plaintiffs, Mr. Maynard, who testified as to the authority of Hills and the manner of doing the business, says, in substance: “Hills was not our agent to make collections on a paper in any instance. When he received paper security, he sent it to the office. He was never our agent to make the collection. He did make the collections and send the money, and, of course, we accepted it when it arrived, but we always held the instrument until we received the money.” Thus it appears from the testimony of this witness that Hills sometimes collected the money on chattel mortgages; was allowed to do it by his principals, who accepted the money thus collected, and sent the original papers to him, to be handed, we suppose, to the debtor or the party executing them. This was the way in which the business was done, and it seems to us idle to contend, in the face of such testimony, that Hills had no authority, expressed or implied, to do what he did in collecting the money on the chattel mortgage which the defendant gave for the unpaid price of the organ; for, if Maynard were to be believed, and there is certainly nothing to discredit his statement, Hills did make such collections, and was allowed to make them. True, the witness is...