Day, J.
1. principal and agent: sale on commission. The court did not err in holding that, under the terms of the order pursuant to which the property in question was shipped, the title did not pass from the plaintiffs to Johnston & Searles, and that they had no authority to dispose of it in payment of a preexisting debt which they owed the defendants. Under the terms of shipment Johnston & Searles were merely the agents of plaintiffs, with authority to dispose of the implements in the manner indicated in the order. To hold that they became either absolute or conditional purchasers of the plows, it would be necessary to ignore utterly many of the provisions of the order pursuant to which the shipment was made. The plaintiffs are not estopped from insisting upon their rights in the property because of the execution of the bill for the plows, set out in the court’s finding of facts. The defendants were not induced to make their purchase because of the existence of this bill. From the finding of facts it appears that they had agreed to take this property in payment of the debt due them, before they had any knowledge of the existence of this bill. The bill was referred to simply for the purpose of ascertaining the price of the plows. For cases analogous in their principles to this, see Conable v. Lynch, 45 Iowa, 84; Bayliss v. Davis, 47 Iowa, 340.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI