Voell v. Klein
| Decision Date | 14 October 1924 |
| Citation | 184 Wis. 620,200 N.W. 364 |
| Parties | VOELL v. KLEIN ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Fond du Lac County; Chester A. Fowler, Judge.
Action by L. A. Voell, sole trader doing business as Voell Auto Sales, against Henry Klein and another, copartners doing business as Eldorado Garage. Judgment in municipal court for defendants was reversed by circuit court, and judgment rendered for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Action of replevin to recover possession of a car sold by plaintiff's agent to the defendants. The action was begun in the municipal court, and the jury returned a verdict finding that the defendants were entitled to the possession of the car. Upon an appeal to the circuit court the judge without a retrial, and upon the record made in the municipal court, held that, though the evidence sustained the finding, nevertheless, the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the car because, as we understand his opinion, the sale was not one for cash. It appears from the testimony that plaintiff had in his employ a man by the name of Brennan, who was authorized to and did sell cars for him. It is shown that he had sold a car in the neighborhood where the defendants resided and carried on their partnership business of a garage. The defendants had also been at the garage of the plaintiff, and had seen Brennan there. It is claimed by the plaintiff that at the time of the sale of the car to the defendants, Brennan had no authority to make a sale except to a party designated by the plaintiff. This fact was unknown to the defendants. Brennan came to their garage and endeavored to sell a Hudson speedster. The result of the negotiation was that the car was purchased, and Brennan took an old automobile as part compensation, and received a check of the defendants for the balance. He sold the car, cashed the check, and absconded. It further appears in the evidence that the usual order for a car was given, and that in a part of the printed portion of the order appeared substantially this statement: Order not valid until accepted by the plaintiff. It appears also from the opinion of the circuit judge that he gave his conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover upon the authority of Roberts v. Francis, 123 Wis. 78, 100 N. W. 1076. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appealed.Duffy & McGalloway, of Fond du Lac, for appellants.
Morse & Fellenz, of Fond du Lac, for respondent.
VINJE, C. J. (after stating the facts as above).
That the trial court held that the transaction must be a cash one in order to be valid appears from his opinion wherein it is stated:
It appears from the facts in Roberts v. Francis that the plaintiff had given his brother possession of a stallion for the purpose of using the same for breeding purposes. He had never given his brother authority to sell or trade the same. The brother traded it for another stallion and some other property, and the court held in that case that there was no apparent authority to make a trade. In this case the agent was intrusted with the property in question for the purpose of selling the same and this was known to the defendants.
[1] The rule in cases of apparent authority of an agent is thus stated in McDermott v. Jackson, 97 Wis. 73, 72 N. W. 375:
If a “third person, because of appearances for which the principal was responsible, believe, and have reasonable ground to believe, that the agent possessed power to act for the principal in the particular transaction, if such third person was, in the exercise of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Janke Construction Co., Inc. v. Vulcan Materials Co.
...38 Wis.2d 457, 157 N.W.2d 680 (1968); Risdon, Inc. v. Miller Distributing Co., 29 Wis.2d 418, 139 N. W.2d 12 (1966); Voell v. Klein, 184 Wis. 620, 200 N.W. 364 (1924)." One question remains. Can the statute of frauds, raised by defendant as a defense in the context of plaintiff's contractua......
-
Henricksen v. Henricksen
...181, 271 N.W.2d 872 (1979); Motor Castings Co. v. Milwaukee County Bank, 254 Wis. 493, 499, 36 N.W.2d 687 (1949); Voell v. Klein, 184 Wis. 620, 622, 200 N.W. 364 (1924). Since an agency relation connects both the plaintiff and Smith Barney to George Henricksen's fraud, the general rule that......
-
Hollingsworth v. American Finance Corp.
...Wis.2d 457, 461, 157 N.W.2d 680 (1968); Risdon, Inc., v. Miller Distributing Co.,29 Wis.2d 418, 139 N.W.2d 12 (1966); Voell v. Klein, 184 Wis. 620, 200 N.W. 364 (1924). This rule applies even though the agent commits a fraud or acts against the principal's interests. Motor Castings Co. v. M......
-
Sell v. Gen. Elec. Supply Corp.
...be read in connection with another rule stated in McDermott v. Jackson, 97 Wis. 64, 72 N.W. 375, quoted approvingly in Voell v. Klein, 184 Wis. 620, 622, 200 N.W. 364, that: ‘If a “third person, because of appearances for which the principal was responsible, believes and has reasonable grou......