Hasselman v. Carroll

• Decision Date: 13 May 1885
• Docket Number: 12,081
• Parties: Hasselman et al. v. Carroll et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

26 N.E. 202

102 Ind. 153

Hasselman et al. v. Carroll et al

No. 12,081

Supreme Court of Indiana

May 13, 1885

Petition for a Rehearing Overruled June 18, 1885.

From the Hamilton Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

G Shirts and W. R. Fertig, for appellants.

J. A Roberts and T. E. Boyd, for appellees.

OPINION

Mitchell, J.

On the 17th day of April, 1883, L. W. Hasselman & Co., of Indianapolis, appointed the appellees agents in the town of Arcadia and vicinity, to sell the Eagle Straw Stacker, of which they were the manufacturers. The appointment was by an instrument in writing, which, besides a great many other stipulations, contained the following:

"Fifth. To deliver no stackers to any party until settled for as herein provided, agreeing, as a penalty for any violation of this article, to become personally responsible for the same, waiving all claim under warranty on said machinery and insuring settlement for same under terms of contract."

It was also stipulated in the contract that no machines should be sold by the agents, except upon a written order which the purchaser should be required to sign, in which were to be stated the terms of sale and manner of settlement, and a stipulation that the title to the property sold should remain in the seller until paid for.

This suit was brought by the principals against the agents, alleging in the first paragraph of the complaint that they had sold and delivered a stacker to one Hankley without taking from him an order as provided in their contract, and without requiring him to settle as their agreement required. It was further alleged that Hankley had wholly failed to pay for the stacker, whereby it was claimed that appellees had become liable for the price of the stacker.

There was a second paragraph of complaint, a common count, for the price of a stacker sold and delivered by plaintiffs to defendants at their request.

Issues were made and a trial had by a jury; the jury returned a special verdict, in substance, that the plaintiffs delivered the stacker to the defendants to be sold under their contract of agency, as set out in the complaint; that the defendants had not sold it to any one, but that they had permitted one Hankley to take it on trial, under an agreement that if it worked satisfactorily he was to purchase it on the terms prescribed in the written orders, at the price of $ 215; that Hankley returned the stacker, claiming that it failed to work properly, and refused to purchase; that another agent of plaintiffs then took charge of and stored it in the town of Arcadia. The plaintiffs moved for judgment on the special verdict, which...