Grant v. Humerick

• Decision Date: 11 April 1903
• Citation: 94 N.W. 510,123 Iowa 571
• Parties: S. E. GRANT, Appellant, v. MRS. WM. HUMERICK
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

94 N.W. 510

123 Iowa 571

S. E. GRANT, Appellant, v. MRS. WM. HUMERICK

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 11, 1903

Appeal from Cass District Court.--HON. N.W. MACY, Judge.

ACTION at law to recover money due on a written contract. The defendant pleaded payment. There was a trial to the court and a judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Willard & Willard for appellant.

James B. Bruff for appellee.

OPINION

SHERWIN, J.

The plaintiff was a dealer in monuments, and sold and delivered one to the defendant for the agreed price of $ 250. The office room used by the plaintiff in connection with his business, and in which he kept his books, papers, and safe was in the same building with his workshop, and was connected therewith by a door. The plaintiff was frequently away from his place of business, and when he was gone those who went there for the transaction of business were waited upon sometimes by a young son, who was there a part of the time, and often by some one of the mechanics who were at work in the shop in the rear. In the latter part of August, 1900, the plaintiff employed one Stein as a workman in the shop, and he remained in the plaintiff's employ until after the transaction in question. During the time Stein was there he attended to the front room when it was necessary, and on two different occasions, at least, received and receipted for payments of money due the plaintiff. The first of the payments so received was on the 14th day of November, 1900, and was $ 160 paid by A. F. Raffenburg. This payment Stein was expressly authorized to receive and receipt for, and it was turned over to the plaintiff. The other of the two payments was made on the 21st day of December, 1900, by R. E. Howlett. The amount was $ 20, for which Stein receipted and accounted. On the 14th day of January, 1901, the defendant went to the plaintiff's place of business for the purpose of paying the amount which would subsequently become due on her written contract for the monument. She found no one there but Stein. The plaintiff was out of town, and his son was at the family residence. She stated to Stein the purpose of her call, and he informed her that he could receive the money. He also told her that he had received and receipted for the Raffenburg money. She thereupon paid the money to him, and took a receipt therefor, which he signed in the name of the plaintiff. Stein pocketed the money, and immediately left for a milder clime.

It is contended that the authority given to Stein to receive the first of these payments created an agency limited to that particular transaction, and which was ended as soon as the money was received, and that Stein was the agent of Howlett and consequently the payment to him would not have bound the plaintiff. It may be conceded that the first proposition states the legal rule correctly so far as the plaintiff and Stein were concerned, for such is the holding in Moore v. Stone, 40 Iowa 259, relied upon by the appellant. It may also be conceded that the other rule contended for is sound when applied to appropriate facts, as it was in Fisher v. The Lodge, 50 Iowa 459. But neither of these rules is decisive of this case, because of the difference in the parties and in the facts. Here the defendant's payment to Stein was good, if he had express...