Gluckauf v. Urton

Plaintite and one Davis entered into a contract by which the latter was to deliver to the former a certain quantity of lumber, at a certain price, within a certain time. Davis was also to purchase of plaintiff a mule team and harness for 81,000, to have the use of the team—though the possession was to remain in plaintiff until the team was paid for. Davis delivered some lumber, but not within the time, nor in the quantity agreed; he also delivered other lumber on general account, and plaintiff advanced money from time to time. Davis then called on plaintiff for a settlement of their accounts, stating that he wished to' know whether the team was paid for, so that he could sell it. lío settlement was made; but in speaking of selling the mules to defendant, plaintiff said to Davis, “ Let Urton have them.” Davis subsequently sold the mules to Urton, and plaintiff now sues for them: Held, that this remark, taken in connection with the accompanying circumstances, was an assent and authorization of a sale to Urton by Davis of the property as that of Davis, and upon such terms as they might agree on. See facts.