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

letter that Jones had talked with him he did
business but that You may upon my doing the
needfI when business proposition to me-" Norris
acqueced And when Carter Norris that he had
entered for the sale of the ranch Norris did
question his authority make but objected far
he pointed specific objections merely purchaser and
then for the first time expressed preference iii that particular
and made statements in his letters and afterwards the wit
stand contradictory his previous and 1t
be remembered also that Norris lived in district
between which and Honolulu inequent and
this adds strength theory Norris intended that Carter
should make binding when he found opportunity
to do In view of all these circumstances must hold with
the Circuit Judge that Norris that Carter had
authority make binding for the sale of the
property.
The question remains whether had authority
partly for credit 1t be pretty well settled and
good grounds that authority sell real estate the absence
of indication the contrary authorizes sale for cash only
unless usual customary sell credit in the place where
the sale is to take place.
An attempt made in this show that large
tons of this kind is usual and customary here for agents
sell partly credit But held by the Circuit Judge the
attempt unsuccessful said that if he agent
had general authority sell land he would feel authorized to
accept like those offered in this but this merely
the expression of his personal opinion how he would feel
and not what customary and he added that he would
feel the way he expressly instructed to sell for cash
He also said that the customary method cash and part
aoih security" The other witness who relied said
that in large transaction of this kind paper given but he did
say that customary for agents accept paper and
added in the that he led by Mr. Carter
understand that it legitimate transaction Large transac
lions of this kind have been frequent here No doubt special
of sale have been arranged each certainly has
been shown be usual customary accept paper
actions of this kind such that Norris must be presumed
have known that such the usual customary In
deed this the Of special agency created for the sale of
particular piece of land In such it usually held that
the who deals with the agent bound ascertain the
of the agents authority and least questionable
wheEe of this kind would admit of proof of general
custom See for instance Riley Wheeler A VT 1879; Dyer
Z. Duffy, 80 W. Va. AS, 10 S. E. $40.
An attempt made show that the
substantially cash transaction by showing that the note
considered good money better because drew in
erest check might under circumstances be deemed
cash. perhaps it given and received payment in
itself but merely for convenience and transferring
the cash without actually handling it, but that would be very diff
eren from what done in this Here be
taken several months Carter authorized SELL
exchange he did what he considered for the
best of his principal but what unauthorized he
and the with whom he dealt took the risk Of having his
action ratified not his principal fit The court
make contract for the principal the ground that would be
for his best interests 1t might under circumstances hold
him that contained all that he authorized
though contained additional provision for his benefit but it
could hold him which contained what he did
authorize place of what he did authorize In this he
sale for 100000 He might be held sale for
$2OOOOO but sale barter for quantity of merchan
100000 Carter undoubtedly thought that the
good cash and doubt but cash. and
the had been for cash could hardly be conned that
would be obliged accept the the ground that
it was good better than cash for him. The question
whether the good cash whether the
thought cash whether the principal willing
to take it in place of cash. And although the plaintiff
offers cash place of the Norris option yet that is not in
that made and the cannot
alter the of the contract for the parties.
1t further contended for the plaintiff that the defendant
by expressly Directing the sale another ground and making
olio in