Taylor v. Labeaume

• Decision Date: 31 October 1852
• Citation: 17 Mo. 338
• Parties: TAYLOR, Plaintiff in Error, v. LABEAUME, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

17 Mo. 338

TAYLOR, Plaintiff in Error,

v.LABEAUME, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1852.

1. A general agent, having the entire superintendence and management of the business of a lumber company, the members of which live abroad, has authority in good faith to make a transfer of lumber in trust to pay off the hands in the employ of the company. The creditors of the company cannot avoid such a transfer on the ground that the members of the company had previously agreed with a third person to deliver all the lumber to him to be disposed of for the company; certainly not, where such third person recognizes the right of him to whom the transfer is made, and does not insist that he himself has any lien or claim.

Error to St. Louis Circuit Court.

R. M. Field, for plaintiff in error. I. There was error in giving defendant's fourth instruction to the jury. 1. By that instruction, the jury were told that a simple delivery to Greene would take away from the company and its agents all authority over the lumber. This proposition, manifestly, cannot be maintained. 2. But even if the proposition were taken with the qualification, that Greene received the lumber under circumstances giving him a right to hold it against the company for his commission or for any liability incurred, still it was manifestly erroneous as between the parties to the record. For any lien on the part of Greene was personal to himself, and the record shows that he did not insist on it. The attaching creditors were clearly not entitled to set up Greene's lien to defeat the plaintiff. Story's Agency, § 372, ad finem. II. There was error in refusing the instruction marked No. 1, of those asked by the plaintiff and refused. The refusal of this instruction was equivalent to telling the jury that the agreement between Greene and Rantoul did, of itself, transfer the lumber to Greene. In this view, there was an end to this case. III. There was error in refusing plaintiff's second overruled instruction. By this refusal the court, in effect, told the jury that secret and unknown limitations on the power of a general agent would be effectual against third parties. Story on Agency, § 126, § 127, et seq.

Todd & Krum, for defendant in error. 1. The court below did not err in giving instruction No. 1, because the plaintiff's evidence not only tended to prove, but did, if true (and the plaintiff cannot deny it), prove that the transfer of the lumber to plaintiff, by Perkins, was in trust to sell it to pay certain debts, and if in trust, of course Perkins' power therefor had to be proved to render it valid. 2. But the court below did err in giving instructions Nos. 1 and 2, at the request of the plaintiff, for it is not true that Perkins, although a general agent, thereby had power to convey the company's property in trust to pay their debts, and to delegate, with such a transfer, power to take it abroad to market, sell it, and out of the proceeds pay expenses and such debts. A general authority to an agent to sell means to sell in the ordinary sense of that term, and only an absolute sale, and for cash alone, unless some custom or usage be shown to the contrary. Besides, a general agent has no authority to delegate his powers to another. But a transfer in trust to another to sell is violative of the above principles of the law of agency. 3. The court did not err in giving for defendant instruction numbered 4. 4. The court did not err in refusing to give instructions Nos. 1 and 2, asked by the plaintiff. Because, by reason of the instructions given, the court had made the issue turn upon the fact, whether this lumber had been, in point of fact, taken by the company out of the hands and control of Perkins, and put into the hands and control of another agent, at the time Perkins undertook to transfer it. 5. In answer to subdivision two of point one, in the plaintiff's brief, we cite 18 J. R. 366, 367.SCOTT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action of trover for lumber, begun by Taylor against Labeaume, in the St. Louis Circuit Court, in November, 1848. There was a verdict and judgment thereon for the defendant.

In the year 1848, a company, composed of members residing in the east, was carrying on the business of cutting and sawing lumber at St. Croix falls in Wisconsin. Hamlet H. Perkins was the agent for the company, the members of which were absent, and he carried on the business for them with as ample powers as though he had been a member. In the summer of 1848, the company became in arrears to the workmen employed in their business, and they becoming very impatient for their pay, Perkins agreed with the plaintiff that he should take down to St. Louis a raft of 400,000 feet of lumber and with the proceeds satisfy the demands of the laborers, first paying the expenses of taking it to market. A bill of sale was made to the plaintiff for the lumber on the 27th of July, 1848, and he hired McPhail and Whiting to take it to St. Louis, and it was delivered to them for that purpose. Taylor was requested to go to Mr. Greene, of St. Louis, who had been interested for the company, and if he would pay the amount for which the lumber was sold at St. Croix, and all the expenses incurred in taking it to St. Louis, it was to be delivered to him. After the lumber was brought to St. Louis, it was taken by the defendant by virtue of a process at the suit of the creditors of the company.

The defendant produced the testimony of I. T. Greene, mentioned above, who deposed that, in July, 1848, he was at St. Croix with Robert Rantoul, who was acting president of the company; that previous to that, the mills had been carried on by Hamlet H. Perkins and others, as lessees of the company; that on the occasion referred to, a settlement took place between the company and lessees, and all the lumber then on hand, including that in controversy, was turned over by the lessees to the company; that Perkins was made agent for the company to carry on the business. This was on the 25th of July, 1848. There were then about 700,000 feet of lumber at the mills, ready for market. The whole, including the quantity in dispute, was delivered by Rantoul to witness (Greene), who accepted the same under an agreement made that day between witness and Rantoul, by which the company bound themselves to...