Estes v. Aaron

• Decision Date: 25 May 1917
• Citation: 116 N.E. 392,227 Mass. 96
• Parties: ESTES v. AARON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

227 Mass. 96

116 N.E. 392

ESTES

v.AARON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 25, 1917.

Appeal from Municipal Court of Boston, Appellate Division.

Action by R. C. Estes, assignee, against Abraham L. Aaron. The trial judge found for plaintiff, and reported the case to the appellate division, which dismissed the report, and defendant appeals. Order dismissing report affirmed.Lourie & Tobey, of Boston, for appellant.

Wm. M. Stockbridge and Rufus B. Sprague, both of Boston, for appellee.

PIERCE, J.

This is an action for the price of goods bought by the defendant's brother, Eli, and delivered at the defendant's place of business. The main question is whether there is any evidence to warrant the finding of the judge who heard the case, that the defendant was the undisclosed principal in the purchase.

It was in evidence that the defendant was the sole owner of the store; that the goods were all delivered at the store with the exception of one small order sent to Rockland, Maine; that the defendant kept all his stock in his showcase; that the brother of the defendant ‘never put things in the showcase’; that the goods purchased by the brother of the defendant from the time the assignor (hereinafter called the plaintiff) opened an account with the brother to the time of this action, were displayed in the store and were not separated from other merchandise in the showcase; that the goods in the showcase were placed there by the defendant, and excluding watches and other things not jewelry, about fifty per cent. of the merchandise on display was merchandise of the plaintiff. Further, there was testimony that the defendant when solicited by the plaintiff to buy, said ‘Eli Aaron did the buying for the concern.’ This was evidence enough to warrant a finding that Eli was the agent of the defendant and had authority to bind him.

The declarations of the brother as to his place of business, his reasons for being without a rating in different mercantile agencies, his assertion of personal honesty, his production of canceled notes, his statement that his brother (the defendant) knew nothing about the business, and his representation that the defendant was simply a clerk in the store, were verbal acts incidental to his application for credit, and were clearly admissible. Allen v. Duncan, 11 Pick. 308. The evidence was also admissible to show the state of mind of the purchaser. For his state of mind at the moment of buying determined whether the purchase was on his own account or on that of the defendant. Jefferds v. Alvard, 151 Mass. 94, 23 N. E. 734. The declarations were not received to prove the authority of Eli to act for the defendant, but were admitted and conditional on the undertaking of the plaintiff ‘to show that the relation of principal and agent existed between the defendant and Eli Aaron.’ There being evidence of an undisclosed agency the dealings between agent and vendor may be shown including the statements of the agent.

The testimony of the plaintiff in answer to the question ...