William S. Hansell & Sons v. Levy

10 Del. 407

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: July 5, 1878
• Status: Published

Opinion

The Court,

Comegys, C. J.,

charged the jury: That the goods were sold by the plaintiffs to N. Newman, Agent, but without stating the person for whom he was acting as agent in the purchase of them, nor was that disclosed in his general conduct of the business of buying and selling goods as an agent at that time; but still, if he was then carrying on the business of buying and selling ready-made clothing with the knowledge and consent of Levy, the defendant, as his agent, Levy became his principal in the business, and was liable as such for all debts contracted by him in it, and was bound in law to pay for the goods sold by the plaintiffs to him, provided the jury were satisfied from the evidence in the case that he was then acting with the knowledge and consent of the defendant as his agent in con-^, ducting and carrying on the business, although the fact that he was buying them as the agent of the defendant was unknown to the plaintiffs, if such was in fact the case, when they sold the goods to him. [ The act of the agent is the act of his principal, and the latter is bound by it provided it is done in good faith and in due execution of the authority conferred upon him for the purpose.) And wherever the acts of the agent will bind the principal, there his declarations or admissions in respect to the matter will also bind him if made at the time of the transaction; and such declarations or admissions so made by him may be proved by any one who heard them without producing the agent himself to prove them. But the jury must be satisfied from all the evidence in the case that Newman was the agent of the defendant in-the_.business of carrying on the store, and continued in it as such after the sale of the stock of goods in it by the sheriff and the purchase of the greater part of them'at the sale by the defendant. And as his agency in the business after i that might be inferred from circumstances and the conduct of the parties between whom that relation is alleged to have sub- j sisted in this case, the fact that the defendant became the . pur- 11 chaser of the goods without removing them from the store, and Newman remained in possession of them-and continued the business of buying and selling such goods as agent, but without disclosing the name of his principal, the jury would be warranted in presuming that the defendant was his principal in it.