Thompson v. Sproul

Citations

• 179 Pa. 266
• 36 A. 290
• 1897 Pa. LEXIS 630

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Evidence—Broker.</p> <p>In an action by T. against a firm of brokers to recover a balance alleged to be due upon a transaction in railway stock, defendant claimed that he had no dealings with T., but only with his son, T., Jr. The evidence of both father and son was that the son dealt with the defendant in the railway stock transaction as agent for his father. The first receipt signed by the defendant was to T., Sr., and all other letters and receipts relating to the railway stock were to T. Three years after the beginning of the transaction in railway stock the son began dealings with the defendant in wheat. All the correspondence relating to the wheat transactions was with T., Jr. During the progress of the transactions the defendant permitted the son to draw money from the street railway stock account, and apply it to the wheat . account. This was done without the knowledge of T., Sr. There was a loss on the wheat account which the defendant offsets against the gain on the railway stock account, claiming that the transactions in both accounts were for the son. Held, (1) that the question whether the defendant knew that the transactions in railway stock were on account of the father, was for the jury; (2) that a mere authority from the father to the son to purchase stock for the father would not justify the defendant, knowing the facts, in allowing the son to withdraw money from the railway stock account for his private use for any purpose; (3) that the fact that the father may have allowed the son to draw out some of the money from the railway stock account, and use it for himself, did not operate as a general sanction for all the son’s acts, nor clothe him with the authority of a general agent.</p>