Schwartz v. Clark

Plaintiff in error’s counsel rely on two propositions for reversal: First, that plaintiff having put it in the power of Eobert J. Walker, the salesman in his employ, to represent himself as the owner of the property, he, and not the defendant, should suffer the loss; second, that there was no sufficient demand for the return of the property.

Eobert J. Walker was a bailee of the plaintiff’s property, for the purposes mentioned in the preceding statement, and had no authority to transfer it to the defendant, except on a sale to the defendant for cash, and, in pawning it to defendant, in…