Hastings v. Bangor House ProprietorsHastings v. Bangor House Proprietors
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
The lease from the defendants to Wood is referred to as part of the case. And it appears, that the lessee, among othеr things, was to'purchase “ all-the glass, crockery, silver', and plated ware,” and to give his notе therefor; and on the determination of the lease, the lessors were obliged to ■ reрurchase the same, or what might remain of them, at a fair value. The lessee was to reрlace all things broken, lost, or injured ; and the articles, which they were obliged to repurchаse would hot therefore necessarily be the same articles, which they sold. The lessee, after he had executed the lease and taken possession of the house, purсhased of the plaintiffs articles of the description before mentioned and represented himself as purchasing for the defendants. These he received and may have plаced them among other articles of like character already in the house. A differеnce having arisen between .the parties to-the lease, their rights and claims appear to have been adjusted by reference; and the furniture in the house to have been rеstored to the possession of the defendants. And they might thus have become possessed оf the articles purchased of the plaintiffs. Before this took place, they had knowlеdge of the plaintiffs’ claim, and had denied the authority of Wood to purchase on their acсount. The plaintiffs contended, that the defendants had received and appropriаted to their own use the articles purchased of them. But their counsel contend, that there was no evidence in the case, that they were received from the lessee in payment of his note by a repurchase provided for in the lease. And that there was not therefore any testimony authorizing the counsel for the defendants to call upon the presiding Judgе to instruct the jury as he was re
It does not appear from the lease, that the lessee was deprived of the right to purchase and use in the house other articles similar to those procured by the defendants. When they came to the knowledge, that he had made these purchases claiming tо be their agent, they could do no more, while the lease operated, than deny such agency. If on the determination of the lease they knowingly received the goods so purchased as their оwn properly, that would amount to a ratification of the agency. A purchase of thеm from Wood would be an admission of his title to them and a practical denial of their having obtained a title by the original purchase through their agent. It might be regarded as unfair, or perhaps fraudulent voluntarily to make a purchase of him knowing, that the plaintiffs had been deceived, whеn they parted with the goods. And this may perhaps have occasioned the instructions, which were given to the jury. The remedy however in such a case would not be by a suit against the defendants as the original purchasers of the goods. But if the defendants purchased them becausе they conceived, that they were obliged to do so by the stipulations in the lease, and thus received them in payment of a note due to them, they could not be justly charged with dealing unfаirly. Whether they came to the possession of the defendants in this manner, or whether they reсeived them as a part of their own furniture was one of the questions apparently presented to the consideration of the jury. The instructions on this point do not distinctly state, but leavе the jury to infer, that the defendants knowing in what manner Wood came by the goods could not receivе them of him by the decision of a tribunal selected by the parties in payment of Wood’s note without a ratification of the original purchase. A purchаse from Wood assumes, that he and not they became the owner by the original purchase, and tends, as before stated, rather to deny than to admit, that he purchased for them. If the schedulе referred to in the requested instruction was not received in evidence, the defendants were not entitled to have
Verdict set aside and, a new trial granted.