46 Iowa 677 | Iowa | 1877
A common carrier may excuse a non-delivery, pursuant to the bill of lading, by delivering the goods upon demand to the real owner.
“ When the bailee has actually delivered the property to the true owner, having the right to the possession, on his demand, it is a sufficient defense against the claim of the bailor in an action for the commission against the bailee.” Steamboat Idaho, 3 Otto, 575.
“When a person falsely represents himself as agent for another for whom he proposes to buy, and thus obtains the vendor’s assent to a sale, and even a delivery of the goods, the whole contract is void; it has never come into existence, for the vendor never assented to sell to the person thus deceiving him.” Benjamin on Sales, Sec. 60.
In the absence of a ratification by Savery of Haskell’s pretended agency, there was no'sale to any one. The ownership of the goods remained in plaintiffs.
•It is true, the plaintiffs treated Haskell as agent. But they did not represent to the express company that he was agent. The company acted upon no such representation. Upon the contrary, the goods were shipped to Savery, and were delivered to Haskell upon his demand that they were his property and should have been shipped to him.
III. Lastly, it is urged that the court below may have
In our opinion, there was in fact no sale of the goods to any one. It was the duty of the express company to deliver to Savery, the consignee. This would have been a strict compliance with its undertaking. If Savery refused to receive them, they should have been held or properly deposited, subject to plaintiffs’ order.
The principles here announced find support in Price v. Oswego R. Co., 50 N. Y., 213.
Reversed.