46 Iowa 181 | Iowa | 1877
The evidence shows that a bill was" sent to and received by the defendant, which is in these words:
“Beloit, Wis., Jan. 5, 1876.
“ Paul Thorson bought of Eclipse Wind Mill Co., one ten foot mill, one hundred feet tin galvanized pipe, one tower.................................$107.50
“ Paul Thorson. ■
“ Pay the account to M. V. Blackmarr, who will remit it with other collections to us.
“ O. B. Salmon, Treasurer.”
The appellant claims that the defendant should have discovered from said bill that the mill was bought of the plaintiff; that he had the means of making the discovery, and if he did not use the means it was his own fault, and that the jury should have been instructed that if defendant had the means of knowing the fact in regard to the ownership of the mill, the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The court was unwilling to go that far, and instructed the jury in substance that if defendant did not know who owned the property when it was sold to him, his liability would depend upon whether he had good reason to know it, and we are of the opinion that the court was correct. We cannot say that the' defendant ought to be held to pay for the property twice if he neither knew nor had good reason to know the plaintiff in the transaction. In one sense a purchaser may be said always to have the means of knowing whether he is purchasing of an agent or not if the person negotiating the trade is willing to disclose the fact. He may have the means of knowing and not •know that he has the means nor be able to discover it in the exercise of reasonable diligence.
II. The appellant claims that the verdict is contrary to the
Affirmed.