The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-12-21

ground that had authority make it, he would be
esoppe afterwards setting that the tender not made
in gold for had made that objection the tme the vendee
might have brought the gold before late. By
Directing at the time would have md the vendee to believe
that there objection the character of the tender and SO
he would not be allowed to advantage of such result OF his
own action afterwards if the tender made too late IN
first place. his objection solely on the ground OF the agents
want of authority the would not estop him from
setting mn afterwards that the tender properly made for
the would be than he would be II an oocon
had been made the of the tender In this case the
the plaintiff med to its dermen by the form OF NOR
R objections could have avoided the effect OF the oDec
ton on the ground of credit, if it had been made
repudated the entire contract but stated only
one ground of objection and the question whether that
objection being found uenabe he set up other obcuons
which would otherwise have been tenabe Tins question an
wered clearly the negative by the Supreme judicial Court Oh
Massachusetts, decided this year. Broon Henry %
N 1913 the head of which reads as follows;
an agent makes which unauthorized In several par
culars the fact that the principal In epudiang IT, gives
as his reason that it unauthorized in certain particular In
which however it authorized does constitute racaon
where the party in injured by the form OF the
principals objection so as to raise an estoppel
Accordingly counsel the plaintiff upon second argument
hoard unon this point relied upon Norris failure to object to the
provision credit not proof OF techncal rancauo "
estoppel evdenta fact from which IN connecuon VIII"
oil his rvous letters and all other circumstances 1T might be
inferred that he originally give authority to carter 10
sell ON credit support of this view the following cases are
cited HARDING a. ParshaH Sc ILL., 219 22e; Bartlett Spark
man. 95 Mo- 1885, 1885, LIE Roy Beard, Haw 451, 469;
Mann o. Lau III Mass $685. 297; Johnson Jones' Barb
$50 a73 No doubt is sound rule that the acts OF prncpal
after he has ACQUIRED full knowledge of the OF contract
entered his be considered as ehu
to show what authority he intended to grant ou "
to conceded counsel for the plaintiff the cases ceo
do not throw much light upon this rule IN Its application 10 h
case.
In our opinion fairly be inferred that Norris intended
70 confer ON Carter authority to give credit Norris first letter
nv itself could not construed comforting authority to ene
into binding contract ALL 1t only in the light OF the suo
uent letters and all the that that construction
can he mt upon the first To further and hold that
there was authority for sale credit would IN our
opinion be going far. Norris intention evidently was "
utterly repuiate whole contract He did not undertake 10
anavze it or review critically state all his objections TO IT,
His correspondence a whole shows ne was not one VINO "ou
be likely do that There intention to acqesce III any
Of the provisions recognize OF them as
authorized His letter June 21 taken whole and by lseI
would indicate that he had not intended tnat carter
should make contract all quite much that ne had IN
tended that credit might given For while he says ne Will
not sell the Portuguese he also says that he sur
psed at with the company and that he NM
self had refused offer of 100000 cash from D. onSra
This be taken throwing much ght on "hat
Norris originally intended We could well hold that ne
intended originally that credit might be given unless that Is
pretty clearly shown by the previous correspondence Du
hardly commended that that by the previous correspon
deuce 1t is true that Carter in his letter of May 26 that
Norris might upon his doing the needtu when business
proposition him. but the inference from this especially
in connection with remainder of the letter. that Garter
meant that he would SELL not that he would
make contract to credit Carter wrote also In the same
letter that he refused option purchase but
Norris would be justified in nferrng that this meant merely an
pton 70 purchase cash and option purchase
credit and matter Carter himself then had cash IN mind
~ shown nv his letter of June % No doubt argued, Norris
had GREAT confidence but he did intend to him
unlimited authority do whatever he thought best for Norris
interests 1t NAV that Norris relying the provision tor
without objection that but merely because