Case ID: njl_1/html/0031-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STEWART v. JOHNSON.
    It is a matter for the jury to decide, whether a man contracts on hia own account or as public agent, where the intent is doubtful.
    This was an action of debt on a bond, and on the trial defendant offered to set off the price of a quantity of flour which the plaintiff had purchased from him.
    By the evidence, it appeared that Stewart, during the war, was an issuing commissary, and wrote to Johnson in these words: “ I find flour will be wanted to supply the ovens at Pittstown,” and desires him to get some in readiness, adding, “ when 1 see Mr. Buchanan, or his deputy, I shall let him know I have engaged what flour you can make; I think it will be more for your interest than selling the wheat.”
    It was contended by R. Stockton and Ab. Ogden, for defendant,
    that this was a private contract, and that the ñonr was sold by Johnson to Stewart, and not to the public. On the other side, it was argued by Leake and Frelinghuysen, that this was a clear case of agency for the public. Stewart was an issuing, Buchanan a purchasing commissary. The counsel for the plaintiff desired the court to charge the jury as to the legal operation of the letter that had been given in evidence, which was declined.
   The court, in their charge, told the jury that Stewart, being an issuing commissary, had no right to make the purchase on behalf of the public, yet such might have been the understanding, and it being a question altogether of intention, it was for the jury to decide between the parties. Macheath v. Haldimand, 1 T. R. 182, opinion of Justice Buller.

[28] The court further said, that if the letter contained an assumption by Stewart, in his private capacity, he was personally responsible; if it was meant as a mere offer to assist Johnson in effecting a sale to the public, he was not liable— that the general rule of law was, that words were to be taken most strongly against the party using them.

The jury disallowed the set-off, and found a verdict for the amount of the bond.

Note. — See 1 Comyn on Contracts 272, for the different cases that have occurred in the English courts upon this point.