The New York herald., 1873-06-26

scott, Strong Co. with letter from defendant, In
which ne offered sixty per cent for the bonds and
Thomas remarked it was the best price obtanable.
accepted ia writnS Guests oer S ana aslivsled s%
month seGsaa s Mr. sea
mat at the time Thomas had told them sixty per
% Drew re sns 10 ss s
he whole cent o the Go
refused suit MAS %as oSught to reeoyer The
age mt and thar his statements were unauthorized by
hin HIS books were produced, and II appeared there
oour, decided that as Quest mad received and CHARGED NO
o the 1a as own sqes AND
case Ss WAS s9rs he psn and the
Bennett pan and by Mr. waldo atehinss n f for re- de-
eaborae onn oney rsvered the Judgment in the following
esting that constantly arise between brokers'
JUDGE BRADYs DECISION
rne evidence In this establishes tho facts Mr.
held the bonds and wanted to sell them lind pnr
Mr. Scout that he %anea h ' to sell phe e
or s thf bas prize he could that Thomas had pre-
ar M that Thomas ana the defendant obtained
equeny homas Went to Mr. Scott and said ha per
aent was me best price he could obtan that Mr. scott
Ms checks for the price Of both purchases
% Mr. Drew ne o 'sssaa as 1s pes
ana ha hs to atsr nhmas % the as
sSSn for % me y per b eSat was the bet best % eoa
but adds "s ha. A' Il was aons
without the knowledge and without any expre 81 di
rectlon or authority OF or from the defendant II is
rsaped the benefit OF such representation gave the
checks for the bonds knowing that he had purchaser
who s!ood ready pay him hiteen per advance and
@ ne Has " st.
's ~ s 5 a ms
settled principles he Is responsible the
ot aasn'y ps h1p % ad sasssrs ss@ s
Mhi'ng ,h - Barb lsy; story on contracts vol 496
Atwood vs. small, b. and f. 4iS). The referece finds
existing between Thomas and the defendant that
Thomas made the statement under consideration as
the agent or empoye or the deiendan and,
whether he knew or not Is. as already suggested
material lie availcd himself the result of lhe isre.
presentation, aud he cannot hold It either in
morals IL enough require hun make re estituion
that through the fundamentally his repre-.
sentative he has obtained improperly what he called
upon to restore tislwell VS. Chamberlin, supral No
ana the contrary has not been asserted except where
me agent has acted beyond the sphere scope of
MS power or authority in reference the transaction
me statement OF the best price egtmately within
" anu was one, as stated by the learned referee, upon
Mnicn Mi mes,rs SEQ strong Co. had right 10 rely.
plating purchase, where the right 1oubtediy xss
TO make any bid which Judgment or fancy may die ate
~ s on Tue contrary transaction in which the ing
uamed was the best could be obtained made by
person acting on behalf OF the seller or pretending to
not to pay commission does not affect the question
The proof that brokers do charge it against each
other Is not material IN this The ele-
ment which pervadcs the transaction destroys all minor
considerations See Conkey Bond "a Barb 276 Same
case IN Court OF Appeals, Abb N s. AIS And 1t may
be said IN addition that the defendants gain by the sale
dering insignificant the amount a commission would
furnish Il seems therefore that whether accept the
this Judgment should be reversed and such must be tie
order OF the Court