Bernheim Bro's & Uri v. Hahn & Pidal

Citations

• 65 Miss. 459

Syllabus

<p>A gency. Declaration of agent, whether evidence against principal. Case in judgment.</p> <p>H., engaged in selling whiskey, agreed with B., to whom he was indebted, that upon the expiration of his license he would deliver to D., for B., all of his remaining stock of whiskey; and B. agreed that D. should receive, measure and receipt for it, and he (B.) would credit Ii. with the value of the same at the cost price thereof. On the same day on which II. delivered the remnant of whiskey to D., in pursuance of his agreement with B., the whiskey thus delivered was attached in the hands of D. by P., a creditor of H. B. claimed the whiskey so attached. Upon the trial of the claimant’s issue, the plaintiff in attachment'was allowed to prove, over the objection of the claimant, that D. stated when the whiskey was seized that it belonged to H. Held, that D.’s agency was not to be exercised in execution of the contract of sale of the whiskey, but merely as a means to determine the extent of the credit to which H. should be entitled on his indebtedness to B.; and his declaration as to the ownership of the whiskey was not within the scope of his agency, and evidence thereof was incompetent.</p>