Parker v. Advance Thresher Co.

Citations

• 75 Wash. 505
• 135 P. 229
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 2238

Syllabus

<p>Principal and Agent — Authority — Termination — Notice to Third Persons — Question for Jury. Where a threshing machine was purchased of the general agent of the manufacturer, and after the first season returned for storage to the agent, who removed part of the machine to use on another, and subsequently delivered it to the purchaser in a defective condition, after expiration of its contract of agency, whether the agency was terminated, as to the purchaser, is a question for the jury, where the purchaser testified that he had no notice thereof; in view of the rule that a general agency is presumed to continue, as to third persons dealing with it, until notice of revocation.</p> <p>Same — Scope of Authority. The duty of replacing a missing cap upon the cylinder of a threshing machine, removed after it was left with the general agent for storage, is within the scope of the agent’s employment, where the agent was expected to deliver machines in storage to the parties calling for them.</p> <p>Sales — Contracts—Modification—Merger. A contract for the sale of a threshing machine, sold to plaintiff and another, is superseded where, after the first season, plaintiff’s partner being in default, the agent obtained possession, and secured the interest of the partner, and the matter was adjusted by the execution of a new contract of sale to the plaintiff alone and the talcing up of the old notes and the execution of new notes by the plaintiff; the interest of the partner being thereby eliminated, and the rights of the parties controlled by the new contract.</p> <p>Negligence — Contributory Negligence — Question for Jury. The question of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, injured while standing upon the cover of the cylinder of a threshing machine, is for the jury, where the evidence of the defendant tended to show that he voluntarily chose an unsafe method of performing the work upon which he was engaged, and the evidence of the plaintiff showed that he was perform