Richards v. . Millard

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] There was evidence, on the part of the plaintiff, free from objection, amply sufficient to require the submission to the jury of the question, whether the defendant, in making the purchase from Cooley, was acting as the agent of the plaintiff, or gave the plaintiff so to understand. The motion for a nonsuit was, therefore, properly…