Palmer v. Hatch
Decision Date | 31 October 1870 |
Parties | E. PALMER et al., Appellants, v. SAMUEL HATCH et al. Respondents. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Donaldson & Skinker, for appellants.
I. The overwhelming weight of decisions sustain the agent's implied power to give warranty at the time of sale, because “a warranty is one of the usual means of effecting a sale.” Dennis v. Ashley's Adm'x settles the law of this case.
II. The warranty in this case was one not inappropriate to the subject-matter. It was, in effect, an agreement of indemnity, like all other warranties. Under the United States revenue law, March 3, 1867 (14 U. S. Stat. at Large, 482, §§ 14, 21), rectified whisky sold or offered for sale at less than the tax rate was subject to seizure and forfeiture as for non-payment of taxes (of which such sale or offer was prima facie evidence), and the burden of proof lay with the claimant to show that the tax had been paid. (5 Blatchf. 542.) This whisky was offered and sold at less than the tax rate. It was therefore brought in imminent danger of seizure, and was liable to entail great loss on plaintiffs. If seized, the burden of proof of payment of taxes lay upon plaintiffs.
Harding & Crane, for respondents.
It appears that the defendants, in July, 1867, sold and delivered to the plaintiffs sundry casks of whisky. It is averred in the petition that, at the time of the sale, the defendants, through their agent, Richardson, promised and agreed, in consideration of the purchase, to indemnify the plaintiffs against any loss or expense which might accrue to them in consequence of any seizure of said whisky on account of any supposed violation of the revenue laws of the United States prior to the sale. The petition further shows that the whisky was subsequently seized and proceeded against for an alleged non-payment of taxes prior to the sale; that it was afterwards released, and that the plaintiffs incurred considerable expense in defending the property against the claim of the government. The recovery of these expenses is the object of this suit.
At the trial the plaintiffs called one of the defendants as a witness, who testified as follows: This was all the evidence in relation to the scope of the agency.
The court excluded evidence and gave and refused instructions, upon the theory that there was no evidence tending to show authority in Richardson to bind his principals as parties to the alleged contract of warranty; and this action of the Circuit Court is what is complained of as erroneous. The plaintiffs insist that the authority to make the contract springs out of and results from Richardson's authority to make sales; that the authority to warrant was an incident of his agency. There would be force in this view if the warranty had been of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johns v. Jaycox
... ... 592, 25 N.E. 1053; Bierman v. City Mills Co., ... 10 Misc. 140, 30 N.Y.S. 929; Hayner & Co. v ... Churchill, 29 Mo.App. 676; Palmer v. Hatch, 46 ... Mo. 585; Reese & Co. v. Bates, 94 Va. 321, 26 S.E ... 865; Waupaca Elec. Light & Ry. Co. v. Milwaukee Elec. Ry ... ...
-
Veatch v. Norman
... ... authorizes the agent to warrant the quality, quantity and ... condition of the articles sold. Palmer v. Hatch, 46 ... Mo. 585; Samuel v. Bartee, 53 Mo.App. 587; ... Andrews v. Kneeland, 6 Cowen 354. (5) If a ... broker's contract is discharged by ... ...
-
Veatch v. Norman
...of the res gestae, and such designation authorizes the agent to warrant the quantity, quality and conditions of the article sold. Palmer v. Hatch, 46 Mo. 585; Samuel Barker, 53 Mo.App. 587; Andrews v. Kneeland, 6 Cowen 354; Story on Agency, secs. 102, 339; Anson, Contracts of Agency (1887),......
-
Friedman & Sons v. Kelly
...v. Suffolk County Mills, 11 Cush. 586.] Now in keeping with the principles thus stated, it was determined by our Supreme Court in Palmer v. Hatch, 46 Mo. 585, that while a traveling salesman on the road, with general authority to sell whiskey for his principal, had authority to employ the u......