84 Ga. 368 | Ga. | 1890
The record in this case shows the following to be, in substance, the facts of the case : J. C. Pinkerton represented the Watertown Steam Engine Co., as its southern agent, and made a settlement with one Tyson for an engine, taking two mules from him in part settlement of his note to the company. Pinkerton kept the mules at Davis’s stables. One of them died and the other was traded to one Pope for a sorrel horse. One Cook got possession of this horse in some way, and Pinkerton brought bail trover therefor. Mansfield stood Cook’s security on the bail-bond. Pinkerton recovered the value of the horse. In the litigation about
Without discussing the many technical grounds set out in the motion, we will confine ourselves to the real merits of the case; and upon the merits, we think the court erred in charging as set out in the 10th ground of the amended motion. The substance of that charge is, that if the Watertown Steam Engine Company had knowledge and notice of the pending suit, and aided Pinkerton by employing counsel, and set up no claim itself at the time, or did not require its agent to sue in his own name for its use, it is bound thereby; and if before asserting its claim the money was garnished by a judgment creditor of Pinkerton, it would be in law the property of Pinkerton and bound for the payment of the judgment creditor. In other words, if the Water-town Company aided Pinkerton in recovering this property, without disclosing that it was its property, it
We do not agree with the court below in this view of the law. • The evidence shows that Pinkerton was the agent of the Watertown Company, with full authority to collect debts, settle claims and convert property into cash for the company, and that he did settle one of its claims, taking two mules in payment therefor, one of which was exchanged for a horse. Cook converted this property and Pinkerton brought suit against him. Pinkerton was in possession of the property when it was unlawfully converted by Cook, and. under the code he had a right to bring this suit in trover and to recover the property or its value. It is true he brought the suit in his own name, and was aided therein by the Water-town company, but we do not see how this fact should estop the company as between it and Palmer Brothers. It appears from the record that Palmer Brothers’ debt against Pinkerton was contracted before this suit by Pinkerton against Cook was instituted. The credit, therefore, was not given on the faith of this property ; and this being true, we cannot see how Palmer Bros. could be injured by allowing the real owner of the property to assert its claim thereto, although the agency of Pinkerton was unknown. In the case of Woodruff v. McGehee, 30 Ga. 158, it was held: “ When an agent makes a contract for his principal, but conceals the fact that he is an agent, contracting as if he were principal, the principal may at any time appear in his true character and claim all the benefits of the contract from the other contracting party, so far as he can do so without injury to that other by the substitution of himself for his agent.” Stephens, J., in delivering the opinion, says : “The reason of the doctxfine is that it is but just that every man should have what really, though secretly, belongs to him, so far as he can obtain it with
Palmer Brothers, not being parties to the trover suit and not having given credit to Pinkerton on the faith of this property, cannot be injured or damaged by allowing the Watertown company, the true owner, to set up a claim to the property. Nor, in our opinion, can they assert the doctrine of estoppel against the Water-town company. If the .Watertown company were now suing Cook and Mansfield for this horse, under the facts disclosed by the record we think the doctrine of estoppel could be asserted by Cook and Mansfield against it: but it does not apply as between the Water-town company and Palmer Brothers. Nor was the fact that it assisted Pinkerton in the suit for the recovery of the horse such an admission by it of the title being in him as would estop them from setting up their own title against any persons not parties to that suit nor prejudiced by the admission.
2. It was insisted by counsel for the defendants in error that even if the Watertown company was not estopped from setting up title, it would still not be entitled to the fund in court, because the fund was not paid in by Cook, against whom the trover suit was brought, but by Mansfield, as security on the bail-bond; and he refers to the ease of Cairns v. Iverson, 3 Ga. 132, to sustain that position. The facts of that case are very different from the facts in this. In that case the cred
For these reasons, we think tbe court below erred int refusing to grant a new trial in this case.
Judqment reversed.