Robbins v. Blanding
| Decision Date | 24 October 1902 |
| Docket Number | 13,205 - (159) |
| Citation | 91 N.W. 844,87 Minn. 246 |
| Parties | D. M. ROBBINS and Another v. CHARLES H. BLANDING |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Becker county to recover $423.50 and interest, for money paid by plaintiffs to the use of defendant at his request. The case was tried before Baxter J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of defendant. From a judgment entered pursuant to the verdict plaintiffs appealed. Reversed, and judgment ordered in favor of plaintiffs for amount claimed.
Principal and Agent -- Ratification.
A failure to disavow the acts of a mere volunteer, who meddlingly assumes to act without authority as agent of another, will not constitute a ratification. But where a person in good faith assumes to act as the agent of another, but without authority in fact, in any particular transaction, the latter, upon being fully informed thereof, must, in cases where his silence might prejudice the assumed agent or innocent third parties, disavow the act within a reasonable time, or he will be held to have ratified it.
Evidence.
Evidence considered, rule applied, and held, as a matter of law, that the defendant in this case ratified a sale made by the plaintiffs for him.
J. M. Witherow and Ball, Watson & Maclay, for appellants.
C. M. Johnston, for respondent.
START C.J.
This is an action to recover from the defendant $423.50, which the plaintiffs allege they were compelled to pay for him in the execution of a contract, made for him by them as his brokers, for the sale of seven hundred bushels of flax for future delivery, which he failed to deliver. The answer, in legal effect, is a general denial. At the close of the evidence the plaintiffs requested the trial court to direct a verdict for them for the amount claimed and interest. The court denied the request, the plaintiffs excepting, and submitted the case to the jury, which returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiffs then made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial, which was denied, judgment entered on the verdict, from which they appealed.
The trial court instructed the jury that, if the plaintiffs were authorized by the defendant to make the sale in question for him, they were entitled to recover the amount claimed, and that this was the only question for the jury to pass upon. It is clear from the record that, if the plaintiffs were so authorized, they were entitled to recover; hence the only question for our decision is this: Does it conclusively appear from the undisputed evidence, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs were authorized to make the sale in question for the defendant? We answer the question in the affirmative.
The undisputed evidence, accepting the testimony of defendant as true, establishes these facts: The plaintiffs were grain commission merchants doing business on the Duluth Board of Trade, and Charles De Leuw was their traveling agent, soliciting business for them. He was not a member of the board of trade. These facts were known to the defendant. In April, 1900, the defendant had a conversation with Mr. De Leuw to the effect that, if the defendant desired to sell grain on the Duluth Board of Trade, he would advise Mr. De Leuw, who would personally attend to the matter, and use his discretion whether to sell or not, the whole proposed business being left to his judgment; and, in case he sold, the deal was to be carried without calling on the defendant for margins. Thereafter, and on April 18, 1900, the defendant sent a telegram to Mr. De Leuw at Duluth, care of the plaintiffs, directing him, in effect, to sell for him seven hundred bushels of flax for October delivery. Mr. De Leuw was absent when this order was received at Duluth, and it was executed by the plaintiffs by a sale of the flax on the Board of Trade for $1.12 1/2 per bushel, to be delivered in the month of October following. They at once wired the sale to the defendant, which was followed by a letter of confirmation. The telegram and letter were duly received by the defendant, but he never answered either. The letter was as follows:
Flax advanced in price, and on June 18, 1900, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial