Kerslake v. Schoonmaker

Headnote

Agent — liability of principal for acts of, after termination of agency — Referee— power of, to receive evidence and reserve Ms decisions as to objections to.

In this action, brought for goods sold and delivered, it appeared that one Boyce had, for a long time, acted as the agent of defendant in carrying on the lumber business, and that, after the termination of his agency, the plaintiff, who had received no notice that he had ceased to be defendant’s agent, sold the lumber to him for the purchase-price of which this suit was brought. Held,, that defendant was liable.

At the trial, evidence objected to by the defendant, was received by the referee, subject to his retaining or rejecting it at the conclusion of the case. Held, that, as the evidence so received was competent, this decision could not operate injuriously, or in any way affect the defendant’s rights; it must be considered the same as if the evidence had been admitted absolutely, which would have been entirely proper.

The decision of this question was not necessary for a proper disposition of the case of Peck v. Yorks,^[1] and the cases therein cited and relied upon (Cluss man v. Merkel,^[2] Brooks v. Christopher,^[3] McKnigkt v. Dunlop,^[4] ) do not sustain the rule laid down.