Haworth v. Truby

Citations

• 138 Pa. 222
• 20 A. 942
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1263

Syllabus

<p>(а) The plaintiffs, wholesale grocers, by direction of their traveling salesman shipped a ton of coffee to the defendant, a retail grocer, which the latter had not ordered. The shipment arriving, the salesman explained his object to the defendant, and took the coffee and disposed of it himself.</p> <p>(б) The defendant received repeated statements from the plaintiffs without repudiating the order, and after the third one remitted to them a part of the proceeds of the coffee which had been paid over to Mm by the salesman, and promised by letter to pay them the balance in a few days:</p> <p>1. In such case, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the balance of the bill from the defendant, because, first, there was a plain ratification of the contract; and, second, the conduct of the defendant put into the hands of the salesman the means of perpetrating a fraud upon his employees.</p> <p>2. In an action by the plaintiffs for the price of the coffee, evidence of the character of an order for a ton of coffee at the defendant’s town, or that shortly thereafter there was a similar transaction on the part of the salesman at the same town, was inadmissible as irrelevant and immaterial.</p>