Ely v. Tweedy
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action for goods sold and delivered ; tried at New-London, September term, 1846, before Hinman, J. The plaintiffs claimed to recover for goods sold and delivered, at different times, to Seymour Davenport, who purchased them as agent, under the name of “ Seymour Davenport, agent.” But he did not inform the plaintiffs for whom he was agent; and there was no evidence that the plaintiffs, at that time, knew that he was the agent of the defendants.
Read the full summary
This was an action for goods sold and delivered ; tried at New-London, September term, 1846, before Hinman, J. The plaintiffs claimed to recover for goods sold and delivered, at different times, to Seymour Davenport, who purchased them as agent, under the name of “ Seymour Davenport, agent.” But he did not inform the plaintiffs for whom he was agent; and there was no evidence that the plaintiffs, at that time, knew that he was the agent of the defendants. The plaintiffs and defendants were, respectively, merchants, residing in the city of Norwich. The defendants admitted, that Davenport was…
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
It was necessary for the plaintiffs to show, that the defendants had made themselves liable for the goods furnished to Davenport, or they could not recover. They attempted to do this, by showing that he was authorized, by the defendants, to trade and deal generally, in all descriptions of property, as their agent. He had acted as their agent in making the purchase in question, as he had done, in many instances, in making purchases of others. But unless the defendants had authorized him to do this, or had held themselves out to the world as persons intending to pay for goods furnished him,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hutchinson v. WheelerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1862