Marvin v. . Wilber

One Vosburgh was an agent of Wilber Son for the purchase of hops; he was agent of the firm only, not for this defendant severally. Waive any question of the statute of frauds for this purpose, and assume that he purchased of the plaintiff as agent of the defendant the hops in question; that such purchase was made expressly for the defendant, as thus stated by Vosburgh, although he had no authority so to purchase, is the defendant severally liable for such a purchase?

I know of no principle upon which such an action can be maintained. The whole case is, that a person has assumed to act for…