McCord & Bradfield Furniture Co. v. Wollpert
Before: Foote
Synopsis
Sale of Furniture— Agent of Manufacturing Firm—Limitation of Authority — Old Patterns — Non-delivery — Damages. — A letter from a manufacturing firm to a customer, to the effect that for the next year they had certain new patterns of furniture, which they would be ready to submit to the inspection of the customer at the end of the month, and that “our Mr. W. will call on you early in January, aud talk to you about handling the line for next year,” only authorizes the agent to sell the new patterns of furniture which were in the process of manufacture, were already manufactured, or were offered to be manufactured, and the customer cannot recover damages for the failure of the manufacturer to deliver old patterns of furniture which the latter had ceased to manufacture, and which the customer claimed to have bought through the agent.
Id. —Ostensible Authority of Agent. —The mere fact that one acts as agent of a manufacturing company in one year for the sale of goods manufactured for sale for that year does not make him an ostensible agent to sell the same goods for the next year, unless such goods are continued to be manufactured or are in stock, and the principal wishes to sell them.
Id. — Goods Out of Manufacture. —An agent authorized to sell new-pattern goods, to be manufactured, in addition to those that the principal has already manufactured or was willing to manufacture, has no authority to sell old-pattern goods, which have ceased to be manufactured, and could not be manufactured except at a loss.
Foote, C. — The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants for the recovery of $881.67, alleged to be due it for goods sold and delivered to the defendants, who set up a counterclaim to an amount greater than that sued for by the plaintiff.
The court found in favor of the plaintiff to the extent of its demand, and also for the defendants to the extent of $1,658, and rendered judgment in favor of the latter for the difference between the value of the goods sold and delivered and the amount allowed on the counterclaim.
This appeal is from that judgment, and an order denying a new trial.
The first point made by the appellant is, that the court erred in finding, upon the evidence, that the plaintiff ever agreed to sell the defendants the goods which the former failed and refused to deliver the latter. The argument in this connection being that the proof showed that the alleged sale was made by an agent of the plaintiff of goods that were to be manufactured, which agent was one selling furniture on commission, and that it was not within the scope of his authority directly or ostensibly to make such a sale binding on the plaintiff.
The evidence as to the scope of the agent’s authority was to this effect: That the plaintiff, the McCord and Bradfield Furniture Company, a corporation, was doing business at Grand Rapids, Michigan; that Frank Wenderoths, its alleged agent, was a member of the firm of Wenderoth Brothers in the city of Chicago, whose business was that of merchants to sell furniture on commission; that he had for several years been coming twice a year to San Francisco, selling the goods of the plaintiff and of other manufacturers to the defendants; that through him the latter had made purchase of goods at various times from plaintiff.
[273]This being the ordinary course of business between the parties, the defendants, on the 10th of December, 1886, received a letter from the plaintiff, to the effect that for the next year the latter had fourteen new patterns of furniture, which it would be ready to submit to the inspection of the former by the end of the month, concluding with this sentence: “Our Frank Wenderoth will call on you early in January, and talk to you about handling the line for next year. ”
After the reception of this letter by the defendants, Wenderoth called upon them, and exhibited photographs of the furniture of the new patterns referred to in that communication, and also of certain old patterns.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)