clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 441   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

WILLIAMS VS. THE SAVAGE MANUFACTURING CO. 441
Williams, the agent of the factory, or to Mr. George Williams,
the town agent, that the complainant was so chargeable.
Mr. George Williams, according to the proof of McEldery,
did not, when informed by the latter that the timber was
nearly ready for delivery, question the obligation of the defen-
dant to comply with the contract, by receiving and paying fop
it. On the contrary, he applied to the witness to release the
defendant from the contract, and it was only on his urgent
solicitation that the former consented to do so. And the
agent at the factory, recognising the right of the town agent
to make the compromise, gave his note, as agent, for the
amount agreed upon, which note was duly paid out of the
funds of the Company. Now, it appears to me, that if the
contract between the complainant and McEldery for the
lumber, could be considered as binding on the Company, as
falling within the general scope of his authority as agent (as
is assumed in the amended answer), it may with equal pro-
priety be assumed, from the acts of the town and country
agents subsequently, in settling the claim and paying the
money, without the suggestion of a doubt regarding the autho-
rity of the complainant to make the contract, that he was
authorized to make it. And especially may such authority
be assumed, when we find, that only very recently has the
claim to charge the complainant with the money so paid, been
brought forward. But conceding, that the complainant, in
making this contract with McEldery, though acting within the
general sphere of his authority, was guilty of an abuse of
power, which would have rendered him responsible for the
damage resulting from it, how can it be maintained, that the
defendant shall, by a compromise, made in the complainant's
absence, and without his knowledge or concurrence, fix the
amount of his liability? For these reasons, I think this
ground of claim against the complainant must be rejected.
20th. This item of surcharge in the amended answer having
been withdrawn, need not be noticed.
21st. In this paragraph of the answer, the defendant sur-
charges the account, by insisting that the complainant is

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 441   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives