Steele Smith Grocery Co. v. Potthast
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Carroll District Court — HoN. Z. A. Church, Judge. . ActioN against defendant for goods sold and delivered W. - IT. Pottbast as bis agent. Decree for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtLadd, J.
The plaintiff sold and delivered to W. H. Pottbast goods of the value of two hundred and seventeen dollars and sixty-eight cents, in 1895, and in this action recovery is sought on the ground that in making the purchase said Potthast was acting as agent of his father, the 1 defendant. By agreement of the parties the cause was tried as an equity action, and must be so treated here. Harrison v. Palo Alto County, 104 Iowa, 383.
The defendant’s liability depends on whether he or his son was owner1 of a stock in trade at Manning at the'time *415the goods were bought by the latter. The theory of the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Kingsley v. DavisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Ross v. LoomisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
- Young & Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1877
- Geo. K. Hubbard & Co. v. Tenbrook & BroSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Smith v. DawleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1894
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. CampbellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- Ford v. DilleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1916
- Lindquist v. DicksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Georgi v. . Texas Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1919
- McDonald v. Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1916
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.