#### Napa Valley Wine Company, Respondent, vs. Casanova and another, Appellants.

*September 16*

October *5, 1909.*

*Agency: Liability of principal for purchases: Secret agreement limiting authority.*

Defendants having sold the stock of liquors and glassware used in a saloon business and turned the business over to the purchaser, to be continued by him in their name, under licenses issued to .them, until the purchase price and cost of the licenses was repaid, a private and undisclosed agreement that he should not commit them to liability for supplies purchased by him for the business would not protect them against a claim for such supplies by one who dealt with him in the ordinary line of such business without knowledge of the restriction.

*290Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for St. Croix county: E. W. Helms, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Tbe defendants, copartners, conducted a brewery business at Hudson, Wisconsin. Tbey bad come into ownership of tbe stock, furniture, fixtures, and lease of a saloon at St. Joseph, and were conducting tbe same through an employee, when tbey effected a sale to one McMahon of tbe stock of liquors and glassware; tbe defendants retaining tbe lease and) furniture and agreeing to procure tbe licenses, both state and municipal, in their own name, whereupon McMahon was to take over tbe business and pay over to tbe defendants, from sales, as rapidly as possible, tbe purchase price and tbe cost of tbe licenses. This be proceeded to do, with the licenses publicly exhibited inside and a sign of tbe defendants’ beer on tbe exterior of tbe building. Tbe plaintiff sold McMahon a quantity of liquors for use in tbe saloon upon McMahon’s statement that be was running tbe saloon for tbe defendants, which be confirmed by calling attention to tbe licenses. Defendants refusing to pay, this action was brought against them.

Tbe court found as a fact “from all tbe transactions accompanying tbe installation of McMahon that it was understood between him and tbe defendants that tbe business of running such saloon should be continued in tbe name of tbe defendants.” Also that tbe goods were sold upon tbe belief that the business was being conducted for and in behalf of tbe defendants and were used in such business. Accordingly judgment was rendered for tbe plaintiff for tbe unpaid balance of tbe purchase, some $60, from which tbe defendants appeal.

*A. J. Kinney,*for tbe appellants.

For tbe respondent there was a brief by *BaJcer & 3aven,*and oral argument by *Spencer Haven.*

Dodge, J.

While, as tbe trial court says, tbe evidence is somewhat nebulous and indefinite as to what tbe parties un*291derstood, yet there was a fair issue of fact for that court to decide. The evidence does not preponderate at all clearly against his conclusion that the intention was that the business should be run as that of the defendants until they were reimbursed the amount of McMahon’s indebtedness to them; and that one of the usual and essential powers incident to the running of such a business, remote from the principal’s residence, is the purchase of supplies to be used therein. This being so, a private and undisclosed agreement that he should not commit defendants to liability for such purchases would not protect them against a claim by one dealing with McMahon in the ordinary line of such business without knowledge of such restriction. *Roche v. Pennington,*90 Wis. 107, 112, 62 N. W. 946; *McDermott v. Jackson,*97 Wis. 64, 71, 72 N. W. 375; *Parr v. Northern E. Mfg. Co.*117 Wis. 278, 287, 93 N. W. 1099; *Abrohams v. Revillon,*129 Wis. 235, 107 N. W. 656; *Ferris v. Kilmer,*48 N. *Y.*300, 304.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.