The Portland daily press., 1870-11-04
Supreme Judicial Court.

OCTOBER TERM, A. D. 1870, BARRows, j., PRE-
SIDING.
THURsDAY.-GranvilleC G. Tyler and Augustus F.
OK VS.. Dennis s. Perkins, Lewis Perkins, D. B.
Perkins, Isaiah Hall and G. B. Pulsifer. Assumpsit
on account annexed for boots and shoes to the
amount of $249. Plaintiffs are boot and shoe man.
ufacturers in this city, and the defendants reside at
Mechanic Falls. The testimony on the part Of the
plaintiff was in substance, that sometime in Deem
ber 1863 the firm Milliken g. Goss retail boot and
shoe dealers at Mechanic Falls failed, their liabilities
amounting to $500 and their assets to about $780,
that the creditors greed to take the notes of the firm
nine months for So per cent of their claim, en-
dorsed by these defendants three OF whom were also
creditors; and the arrangement was made whereby
these defendants should endorse the per centage
notes TO the other creditors take convey ance the
stock and dispose of it, In accordance with this
rangement the defendants took possession of the
stock AMI put Goss, one of the partners into the
store to continue the business, pay up the per cent
age notes and act as their agent Goss went in and
under the direction of OF the defendants put
advertisement in the paper stating that the store
(which had been closed while the negotiations were
pendlng) was reopened and they should continue to
do certain work in all its branches, and they should
keep also good assortment of boots shoes and rub
bers for sale cheap, asd signed L. d. Goss, Agent;
that Goss made purchases agent signed his letters
as agent, the goods came marked to him as agent,
and that the sat in the store marked to him as
agent. Several witnesses testified that some of the
defendants had communicated to them the tact that
toss was their agent, ami requesting them to pat
ronize them; that Waterheuse and Perkins were in
the store several times and looked over the books
and particularly the accounts with the plaintiffs and
others of whom Goss was at the time purchasing on
credit 1t was also in testimony, and admitted by
<ho af, 10 kl,af \:
after Goss went in there, given to one Smith for
stock purchased to 90 into the store and which was
signed by Goss, but not as agent. and that Water
house ordered him (Goss) to add the word agent to
his name, which he did.
The defen ants deny their liability, and say that
Goss was no agent of theirs with authority to bind
them with any such bargains, and say that he was
put in there alter the failure of Miken & Goss and
the purchase OF the stock by the Defendants not
the purpose OF continuing the business, but to close
1t up, to make sale what there was left to the
best advantage to buy only for cash be taken from
the drawer at the time; that Goss was there instruct
ed, and that they never at any time enlarged his
powers, and that they have not conducted in any
manner to preclude them from showing that these
were the instructions which he had and that he had
authority to purchase upon their credit -Four of
the defendants acknowledged having seen the adver
it until altar this suit commenced, but an
denied ever authorized it, although they made no OBJ
lection to it after discovering it. They denied ever
having any knowledge that he was purchasing on
credit until just prior to this suit being brought;
that they never examined the stock nor the books,
although Waterhouse says he did go in twice and
show Goss how to keep his books. Verdict for plain
tifs for $25i.27.
Strout g Gage. Webb.
MT. Ludden.
Rosetta Jordan vs.. Chas. s.. Jordan. Libel for di-
vorce. Divorce decreed.
Howard & Cleaves.
Benjamin f. Wentworth VS.. Hartford Fire Insur-
ance Co. Action on policy OF insurance against fire
to the amount of $1,000 on stock OF w. I. goods
and groceries and such other articles common
ly kept in country store, contained in story and
halt building, situated at South Lmington, which
stock and building was wholly consumed by fire on
the 10th of May, 1867 On trial.
Littlefeld. Webb.