Trainer v. Morison

• Decision Date: 13 February 1886
• Parties: TRAINER v. MORISON and others.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

3 A. 185

78 Me. 160

TRAINER

v. MORISON and others.¹

SUPREME COURT OF MAINE.

Filed February 13, 1886.

On report.

John B. B. Fiske, for plaintiff.

Davis & Bailey, for defendants.

HASKELL, J. Assumpsit, to recover the price for merchandise sold. Defense, payment to the plaintiff's agent. The plaintiff employed an agent to "sell" his goods "by sample." The agent took an order from the defendants for oil, and directed the same forwarded to them, saying that it would arrive by next boat, and that "he came round once a month," when the defendants engaged to pay him. The goods were delivered as agreed, accompanied by a bill, with the words, "All bills must be paid by check to our order, or in current funds at our office," printed in red at the top. In two weeks after the delivery of the oil, the agent called for and received from the defendants pay for the same, and gave to them a bill receipted in the plaintiff's name by himself, that bore the same notice in red letters that was printed upon the bill sent with the goods. The agent embezzled the collection. The case comes up on report. The agent contracted a sale of the goods to be delivered, and to be paid for to himself at his next call. The goods were delivered according to the contract, thereby giving the defendants reason to believe that the agent had authority to contract for their sale. An agent who has authority to contract for the sale of chattels has authority to collect pay for them at the time, or as a part of the same transaction, in the absence of any prohibition known to the purchaser. Capel v. Thornton, 8 Car. & P. 352; Greely v. Bartlett, 1 Me. 173; Goodenow v. Tyler, 7 Mass. 36; Story, Ag. § 102. Knowledge of this prohibition by the purchaser may be inferred from particular circumstances of the sale, or from customary usages of trade with which he is familiar, as well as by direct notice that the authority of the agent is limited in this particular. Persons dealing with an agent have a right to presume that his agency is general, and not limited, and notice of the limited authority must be brought to their knowledge before they are to regard it. Methuen Co. v. Hayes, 33 Me. 169. A traveling agent who assumes only to solicit orders for goods to be sold at the option of his principal, as in McKindly v. Dunham, (Wis.) 13 N. W. Rep. 485, may well be held unauthorized to make collections. So a broker, not intrusted with an article sold, may not be authorized to receive the money. Higgins v. Moore, 34 N. Y. 417; Baring v. Corrie, 2 Barn. & Aid. 137; Story, Ag. § 109.

In this case the agent assumed to complete a contract of sale, specific in its terms, stipulating that payment was to be made to himself. After the goods had been delivered, he presented for payment a bill made upon a genuine "bill-head" of his principal. He assumed general authority, and no facts are proved that curtail or limit it. The plaintiff seeks to charge the defendants with knowledge that payment was required to be made according to the terms of the notice in red letters upon the bill sent with the goods. The defendants did not see the notice, nor,...