From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kayton v. Barnett

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 3, 1889
23 N.E. 24 (N.Y. 1889)

Opinion

Argued October 31, 1889

Decided December 3, 1889

W.J. Curtis for appellants. A.R. Dyett for respondents.


When goods are sold on credit to a person whom the vendor believes to be the purchaser, and he afterwards discovers that the person credited bought as agent for another, the vendor has a cause of action against the principal for the purchase-price. The defendants concede the existence of this general rule, but assert that it is not applicable to this case, because, while Bishop and the plaintiffs were negotiating, they stated they would not sell the property to the defendants, and Bishop assured them he was buying for himself and not for them. It appears by evidence, which is wholly uncontradicted, that the defendants directed every step taken by Bishop in his negotiations with plaintiffs; that the property was purchased for and delivered to the defendants, who have ever since retained it; that they paid the $3,000 towards the purchase-price, and agreed with Bishop, after the notes had been delivered, to hold him harmless from them. Notwithstanding the assertion of the plaintiffs that they would not sell to the defendants, they, through the circumvention of Bishop and the defendants, did sell the property to the defendants, who have had the benefit of it, and have never paid the remainder of the purchase-price pursuant to their agreement. Bishop was the defendants' agent. Bishop's mind was, in this transaction, the defendants' mind, and so the minds of the parties met, and the defendants having, through their own and their agent's deception, acquired the plaintiffs' property by purchase, cannot successfully assert that they are not liable for the remainder of the purchase-price because they, through their agent, succeeded in inducing the defendants to do that which they did not intend to do, and, perhaps, would not have done had the defendants not dealt disingenuously.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

All concur, except HAIGHT, J., not sitting.

Judgment reversed.


Summaries of

Kayton v. Barnett

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 3, 1889
23 N.E. 24 (N.Y. 1889)
Case details for

Kayton v. Barnett

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM KAYTON et al., Appellants, v . AARON BARNETT et al., Respondents

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 3, 1889

Citations

23 N.E. 24 (N.Y. 1889)
23 N.E. 24
27 N.Y. St. Rptr. 678

Citing Cases

Rochell v. Moore-Handley Hardware Co.

If one authorized by another to act as his agent in acting on behalf of the principal fails to disclose the…

Ranger v. Thalmann

It is not alleged that the relation of the defendant to the transaction was that of an undisclosed principal,…