Lininger v. Latshaw

Citations

• 169 Pa. 398
• 32 A. 440
• 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1106

Syllabus

<p>[Marked to be reported.]</p> <p>Evidence— Question for jury.</p> <p>While several suits were pending against defendants, several plaintiffs in the suits joined in a written agreement by which an extension of time was granted to defendants so that a compromise might be effected; the con tract to be binding only when signed by all of the plaintiffs. O, one of the plaintiffs signed for L, another of the plaintiffs. A compromise was subsequently effected by which the defendants were to pay fifty per cent of the claims. 0 received the percentage of L’s claim, and paid it over to L, who accepted it without objection. L subsequently disavowed O’s authority to act for him, and pressed his suit against defendant. At the trial 0 testified that when he signed the paper for L he presumed he had authority; that he would not have signed it without authority, that his recollection was that he had authority. One of the defendants testified that during the negotiations for compromise L constantly referred to 0 as the person who was acting for him, and stated that if 0 signed for him it would be satisfactory. L denied this testimony, and asserted that he had given no authority to O to sign for him, and that the payment made through 0 was a general payment made on the whole sum due. Held, that the question was for the jury, and it would have been grave error to withhold it from them.</p>