36 FEDERAL nmpomsn.
vidual credit of Wirth, and shipped the property to him as the pur-
chaser and personal consignee thereof, and respectively received and
· accepted his individual acceptances for the purchase price, which ac-
ceptances were ultimatelynot paid. It seems that at the time of
these transactions the Meadow Spring Distilling Company was a cor-
poration owning and operating a newly-constructed distillery in this
city, of which corporation Leopold Wirth was the president, and of
which, in the conduct of its business, William Bergenthal was the
general manager. It is claimed by the plaintiffs, in their respective
cases, that immediately after the arrival of the malt and barrels in
` Milwaukee, the same were removed to the distillery of the defendant
o company, and that the defendant had the full use and benefit of the
property in its business. The theory of the plaintids is that although
Wirth negotiated for and ordered the malt and barrels in question
in his own name and on his individual credit, he in fact made the
purchase for the use and benefit ofthe defendant company; that
the property was purchased to be used at the distillery of the defend—
ant, and on behalf and with the knowledge of the company, and that
the defendant in fact had the use and received the whole benefit of
» the property, and therefore ought to pay, and in law became liable to
pay, for the same. The claim ofthe defendant in both cases is that
the purchases were made by Leopold Wirth on his own account, for
his own use, and on his sole credit; that the purchases were not
made by him as an agent; that he had no authority so to act for the
defendant; that the defendant company at the time had no knowledge
of the transactions; that the purchases were not originally made for
its use and benefit; that it had no connection therewith, and did not
authorize the same, and that subsequently, after Wirth had become the
owner of the property in his own rigl1t, it purchased the malt and
barrels from him as a subsequent and independent transaction, and
paid him therefor; that, therefore, it is under no liability to the plain-
tiifs.
In submitting the cases to you, gentlemen, the court will not enter
upon any discussion of the testimony. The facts lie within narrow
compass, and they have been fully elucidated by counsel. You have
heard the versions, given on both sides, of the negotiations which
took place between Wirth and the plaintiffs in Chicago, the evidence
of which the court has no doubt is admissible as tending to show the
relations of ,Wirth to the transactions in dispute, and as bearing upon
the character in which he acted in making the purchases. All the
facts material to the controversy l1ave been laid before you, and you
are to say, in the light of those facts and the instructions which the
court gives to you upon the law of the case, what the rights of the
parties are. r It is the law that where goods are sold to a person who
i`s in fact an agent of another, and on the credit of such person, but
without knowledge of the agency on the part of the seller, the latter
has the right to make the principal his debtor on discovering him;