POPE v. MEADOW SPRING DISTILLING 00. 35
Poms v. Minnow SPRING DISTILLING C0.
RYAN v. SAME.
(Circuit Oourt, E'. D. Wisconsin. April 12, 1884.)
1. Aenncv-Concssnsu Aos¤cv—Rssronsxnr1.1rv or Pnmomsn.
A party selling goods to another and taking his individual acceptance there-
for,may, upon the discovery that the latter was really acting in the interest of
glsglggéipr authority from a third party, hold that third party responsible for
2. Sams - Acr or Acnncr Esrsnnrsnsn mz Susssqunnr Aocnrmncm or mm
Pnorsmw Puncnissn.
A party who, without the authority of another, purchases goods for him,
which the other, knowing the purchase has been so made, accepts, becomes
thereby an agent, and the other, as principal, may be required by the seller of
the goods to pay the consideration.
At Law.
Jenkins, Winkler é Smith, for plaintiffs.
Goodwin it Miller, for defendant. _
Dyna, J., (charging jury.) These are two actions, one brought by
Charles Pope and the other by D. W. Ryan, against the Meadow Spring
Distilling Company, to recover in the one case the purchase price
ofa certain quantity of malt, and in the other case the purchase price
of a quantity of barrels, which it is alleged came to the possession of
the defendant company through a sale of the same, in the first in-
stance, to one Leopold Wirth, and of which property, it is alleged, the
defendant had the use and benefit. The complaint in the case of Pope
charges that in August, 1883, Leopold Wirth, who was the president
of the defendant company, ordered of the plaintiff, who was a malt-
ster in Chicago, two car-loads of malt suitable for use in a distillery,
and the plaintiff Pope, at the request of Wirth, shipped to him such
two car-loads of malt on the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth days
of August, 1883; that the same were of the value of $1,255.78; that
Wirth made the order and request for the malt for the use and benefit,
and with the knowledge and on behalf, of the defendant, and for the
purpose of getting the same into the possession of the defendant; that
the defendant company realized the whole beneht and advantage of
the purchase, and received the malt in pursuance of the shipment by
the plaintiff, and used the same, and became thereby indebted to the
plaintiff in the amount of the purchase price, $1,255.7 8. In the case
of Ryan, the same state of facts and grounds of alleged liability are
stated, except that the property described consisted of three car-loads
of barrels, the value and purchase price of which are alleged to have
been $77 5.25, which is the amount sought to be recovered by the
plaintiff Ryan.
It is undisputedithat the plaintiffs in the several actions, at the
time they sold the property in question, made the sales on the indi-