Kornemann v. Monaghan

• Decision Date: 31 October 1871
• Citation: 24 Mich. 36
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Otto Kornemann and another v. William Monaghan

24 Mich. 36

Otto Kornemann and another v. William Monaghan

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 31, 1871

Heard October 28, 1871

Error to Wayne circuit.

This suit was brought by Otto Kornemann and Julius Jungbluth against William Monaghan, to recover the price of certain goods sold by the former to the latter, through the means of an order taken by a traveling agent of the plaintiff's named H. C. Pearl. The trial was by jury, and the verdict and judgment were for the defendant.

Judgment reversed with costs, and a new trial granted.

Dickinson & Dickinson, for the plaintiffs in error.

George H. Prentis, for defendant in error.

OPINION

Campbell Ch. J.

Plaintiffs forwarded a bill of goods to defendant, ordered by the latter from one Pearl, who did not mention to whom he intended to send the order. The goods were sent to defendant directly, accompanied by a bill in the name of the plaintiffs. A letter, sent at the same time, directing the price to be remitted, is sworn not to have been received. Defendant gave evidence that after receiving the bill he paid the price to Pearl, but not till he had asked him if he had authority to receive it. There had never been any dealings between plaintiffs and defendant, but defendant had previously dealt with Pearl in agencies for other houses, and had paid him money. Pearl disappeared without paying over the money. The court charged that plaintiffs, by sending the goods on Pearl's order, authorized defendant to assume he was empowered to receive payment.

There had been no dealings whatever between defendant and plaintiffs whereby defendant could have been enabled to know anything about Pearl's authority. An agent may have as much or as little power as his principals see fit to give him. The evidence here showed no agency whatever whereby he could lawfully bind them to anything. In the absence of actual authority the plaintiffs could only be held on the ground that, by their action, they had induced defendant to believe Pearl had full authority to receive money for them. If they had sanctioned such conduct before, that might tend to support the claim. But plaintiffs and defendant had never known each other in business before. The goods were not even sent to Pearl for delivery, but were sent direct to the purchaser from the sellers. There was nothing therefore to exonerate the purchaser from ascertaining the agent's powers. This he seems to have supposed h...