Searing v. Butler

Citations

• 69 Ill. 575

Syllabus

<p>1. Agency—ratification inferred from, circumstances. Where an agent exceeds his authority, there need not be an express ratification to bind the principal, but a subsequent assent may be inferred from circumstances, which the law considers equivalent to an express ratification.</p> <p>2. Thus, where a party directed a commission merchant to sell a lot of wheat for him at not less than $1.05 per bushel, with the privilege to the seller to deliver the same at his option, at any time during the current year, and the merchant sold the same at $1.02% per bushel, and immediately notified the principal, who made no reply, and expressed no intention to disaffirm the sale until about a month afterwards, when wheat had advanced considerably: Meld, that a ratification of the sale was properly inferred from the circumstances.</p> <p>3. Same—liability of principal to agent. Where a commission merchant, by direction of his principal, sold for the latter 5000 bushels of wheat, to be delivered at any time during the current year, at the seller’s option, and after an advance in' the price the principal refused to stand to the contract, and the merchant settled with the buyer by paying him the difference between the contract price and the market value, the principal being unknown to the purchaser: Meld, that the principal was liable to his agent for the sum so paid by him, and also for his commissions.</p> <p>4. Pleading and evidence—allegation as to time not necessary to be proved as laid. Where a party selling grain for another, who refuses to deliver, settles with the purchaser, paying him the difference between the contract and market prices, alleged in his declaration, in a suit against the principal, that he was compelled to and did pay such difference on a certain day: Meld, that the allegation was not material as to time, and therefore not necessary to be proved as laid.</p>