Soule v. Steamboat Pike
SOULE & PAGE v. THE STEAMBOAT PIKE
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William J. Murray, Jr. (author), Solomon Heydenfeldt, Bryan
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Murray
MURRAY, C. J.
— The appellant assigns as error that there is no proof of any privity of contract between the plaintiffs and defendant. The testimony of the witness does not show that he was authorized to purchase the lumber in question, and without some authority, the defendant would not be liable. But the witness testifies that the lumber was used in the construction of-the boat by the order of the owner. Now, I am of opinion that if the lumber was received and used with the knowledge of the owner, he thereby ratified the act of the witness and made him his agent for the transaction, and is liable.
Judgment affirmed.
I concur: Bryan, J.
Dissent — Heydenfeldt
HEYDENFELDT, J., Dissenting. — I dissent, because there is no proof of privity of contract, no proof that the lumber was *5bought on account of the boat, or by authority of the owner. And although it was used in the construction of the boat, there is nothing to show that the purchase was not made by the carpenter and on his own account. And there appears from his testimony, taken by deposition and without cross-examination, a studied attempt to avoid a full and explicit relation of the facts.