Court Opinion

ID: 3552749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:04:51.857106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:33.527088
License: Public Domain

The slate were delivered to C. If the delivery was authorized, the plaintiffs have no claim against the defendants. If the delivery was unauthorized, and they subsequently ratified it, the ratification is equivalent to an authorized delivery, and is an effectual bar to the plaintiffs' recovery.
The plaintiffs knew the slate had been delivered. They sued C. to recover the pay for them, basing their claim upon a sale and delivery. They took an order on the district for their pay, and gave C. a bill of the slate receipted. The order was not paid; and they entered their suit in court, and continued it until the third term. They neglected to make any claim upon the defendants until more than four months after the delivery to C. was known to them, and after the commencement of their suit against C. to recover their pay.
Upon the most favorable view of this evidence, there was nothing upon which the jury could properly find a verdict for the plaintiffs. Here was no evidence in favor of the plaintiffs to be weighed by the jury, no inferences were to be drawn from facts proved, nor was the credibility of witnesses to be passed on. Upon the uncontradicted testimony of the plaintiffs, the delivery by the defendants to C. was ratified. The court should therefore have directed a verdict for the defendants.
Verdict set aside.
CLARK, J., did not sit: the others concurred. *Page 523