Inglish v. Ayer

• Decision Date: 20 February 1890
• Citation: 79 Mich. 516,44 N.W. 942
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: INGLISH v. AYER.

44 N.W. 942

79 Mich. 516

INGLISH v. AYER.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 20, 1890

Error to circuit court, Iosco county; WILLIAM H. SIMPSON, Judge.

Henry & Cornville, for appellant.

Hatch & Cooley, for appellee.

GRANT J.

The defendant, Ayer, resided in Chicago, and was engaged in the business of buying and selling railroad material, ties telegraph poles, and things of that nature. One Lot S. Smith had the entire management of his whole business. One John A Widner was defendant's agent at Alpena, Mich., with authority to buy ties, poles, etc., in that vicinity, to make contracts for that purpose, and to advance money on them. This he was in the habit of doing. November 2, 1885 plaintiff and defendant, through his agent, Widner, entered into a written contract by which he agreed to buy for defendant all the cedar ties in the round he could, at prices to be dictated by defendant, and was to receive certain stipulated prices for sawing, floating, piling, and furnishing ground for storing. Certain materials were furnished under this contract in regard to which there is no dispute. The dispute between the parties arises out of a transaction which plaintiff contends was separate and distinct from this agreement, but which the defendant contends was included within it. The testimony is in direct conflict. The evidence on the part of the plaintiff tended to show that the defendant and one Tuttle had had a previous deal, and that Tuttle was indebted to defendant. Widner, learning that Tuttle had some timber suitable for ties, requested plaintiff to investigate and report. Plaintiff did so, and reported by letter that Tuttle would sell the stumpage, and let it go on his debt to defendant. The purchase was made. Widner requested plaintiff to make arrangements for getting it out. Plaintiff saw one Farrand obtained a bid from him, and reported it to Widner, who instructed him to let the job to Farrand. Farrand took the job, and proceeded to get out the timber. Farrand wanted some help in advance, and Widner told plaintiff to "start him going." Plaintiff then advanced him some money. Afterwards Farrand wanted more money, and threatened to stop; whereupon Widner instructed plaintiff to advance more money, saying that it would make no difference if Farrand was a litte behind in the spring,-he would let him a job another year. Later, Widner became dissatisfied with Farrand's work, and assumed the entire control, putting his own foreman in charge. There was other testimony, but the above is sufficient for the determination of the questions involved. Defendant paid plaintiff at various times from December, 1885, to October, 1886, sums of money ranging from $300 to $800, and aggregating $4,400. This leaves the defendant indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $240.70, if defendant is liable for the moneys paid by plaintiff to Farrand. We think the circuit judge correctly charged the jury that Widner, as the agent of defendant, had the authority to make the alleged agreement with plaintiff. He was the defendant's...