The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-12-19
MrTSONEEAs
m~sa Liabie ~ PRINCIPAL fsr Fsisase 70
Deliver sasrh s~a1 no Them.

mrm Liansr ~ TmcWes ~
Deliver sa"ek s~m ~ '"
The App-Ilat. Division Of the supreme
Court. Second Department, has just held
that when an anc,ionser sells stock a.
auction without di--Io-,ng the ownership Of
tbs. stock he b.com.- Liable for dana s-- for
failure TO deliver the stock even thou sh the
purchaser may suspect that the auctionecr
Is only acting As agent. The fact that the
auction.~r did Disclose the name OF the
owner after the stock had been knocked
down does not relieve the aIIctioneer from
liability A. pripcipal. b.caua. when he gives
a hill Of ale IN his own name he becomes
personally liable although he has disclosed
the mans. Of ,h, principal
In the cas-. before tbs. court Adrian n.
Muller h Son auc,ion~ers sold forty shares
Of Lake Charles Rice Milling Company To
Charles g. Mayer at public auction. the
stock being advertised for sale as for the
account OF whom IL NAV concern TIE
buyer paid 10 per cent M once and was to
nav the additional amour, The following
dav The plaintiff go, bill of "A lie when he
paid the 10 per cent and when he offered
,h. b,lanc. IN. auctione.r wa. unabl. 10
deliver the stock IN. ta.fendap,s offered
evidence. which was rejected. OF an entry
OF tn. sal., in the auction hook showing the
real name of tho seller the refusal of th,
seller to deliver the stock and that the
sellers name had been disclosed to the
buyer ON the day Of the sale
Justic. Thomas writing the opinion .ays
,ba, tn. entry Of th. All. in m. auction
book wa. properIy reiec,ed because ths,
rights Of IN. nar,i.. had been ax.d nv
earlier ac,s and tina, the evidence of ,h,
ornl n,,ice Of tho r.al SELLER was ina DIM is.ible
bccauss the legal obli legations and the identify
Of IN. contracting nar,ies had bsen axed
bv the knocking down Of the stock and
conf,rmc,, nv the delivery of tbe defendanfs'
memorandum Of the sale although delivery
of tbs. s,ock WAS refused To th. defendants
con,.n,iop thar ,b. na.sinx of ,itlr ras
conditioned upon the paymen, Of the fI,ll
.um hid rba ,our, ANY. n ia imma,erial
xh., h.r title n.ss..i m, thu time tbs, good.
x~r,. knocked down with right Of posseaaion
4, tho s,.I,.r IN nro,.c, bis liam ON tho nur-
ch.... p,onax "a dsc,,,.d In Uayver,y Va
Palmer 20 Johns Oh t35) Lucas vs. Wallace
,a2 III App. i72 and others or whether its
yezt,nv in III. plaintifY was conditional upou
Oh. nayman, ~ ,ba nri,s
Tn. court .axs thai WIZ, tho stock xas
L...,I..x, -. . ....-. =. -. 40
.tt Al, ,,,. - 49, =.
'' w. "s' '"e ''"ois 80
'"e pa"'"i ''e o,'e' ~ pe's'" !" ias'
an agent nhuortak"s TO contract rs princi-
pal ne o~c"tneS Shch. hotwHhStahnihg the
other party may suspect that ne ~ an agent
and has means OF ascertainlng tho name OF
the principal. Tho knowledge Of the agency
must exist aud that the party contracts "a
such (Remer W. Brown 1876 y y 40,
There il no evidence that rho tiefendants
ma ayen,s off..r.d ,bs stock for sal., and
.pocEed /, down IN IN. nlaip,iN mr. TIA. IN.
,,,i,,ir ri $500, a., L,a,.,.,,,,. -, -
..n., Tn... o.c,,,.,,,,, o., 90. ;,,,,..,,.,,
I - ~, -. -. - -.
10 ,,,s knnw,.t,,. ,u;lI. 80. Ill.,. ,o
Wand AN In tha, cas-. 4, wa. decided
,b., nm .uc,,o,.sr in t,.,, ac,irv -. 200,
/. horna a. n,;nc;n.I ,,nIaxs a, ,h. rim. "a ,h.
wi. ~. di.r,o.. an. n,n,, ~ nj. ,,,i,r;n.I.
thu, h,s y.n.r.l .m,Ioyr,s,, !. No, %, :.
motto. ,h,, h. act. n. ,.n, nor - i, m.,.,,,,
,ha, bs i. Enowp IN ,bs n, nor marty IN h. a,
au,,ion.rr or broker Who 4. ,syal,y am
nIovsd in s,.Iliny nrop.,,v "A tho ,y.r,' -,
o,h.r.
In.,i,. 1,h,r,,,
80. ,t.,.., b., a.. ,..,.,,',.,- -. ',.,..,