Bradford v. Eastburn , 2 Wash. C. C. 219 ( 1808 )

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.

This is certainly a very plain case. If the court could discover any difficulty in it, we would ask you to reserve the point of law, which has been raised. But there is no doubt respecting it, and of course it is our duty to say, that your verdict should be for the defendant.

As to the inconveniences stated by the plaintiffs’ counsel, if agents in cases of this-kind should not be liable, but persons contracting with them should be turned over to their constituents, across the water, the answer is plain. If a merchant here wishes for the responsibility of the agent, let him take the personal engagement of the agent, that the orders sent to his principal shall be. complied with. If the agent refuse a personal liability, the merchant can deal with the principal or not, as he pleases. But the question here is, did the defendant enter into the agreement, charged by the declaration to have been made by him, and denied by the plea? There is no other point for you to try; for, however the plaintiffs may have been injured, still, if the defendant did' not promise, as he is charged, the remedy cannot be against him. Now it appears to us, that the defendant was nothing more than a channel of communication between the plaintiffs and Longman & Co. The circular letter, containing the offer to furnish goods, is signed by them; and the answer of the plaintiffs, agreeing to import, is addressed, together with their orders, to them. The defendant is applied to by the plaintiffs, merely to forward their letter, which he promised to do, and which promise he performed.

The goods were not sent to the plaintiffs by Longman & Co., as they had a right to expect, but were consigned to the defendant. It is to be presumed, that the defendant acted under the direction of his principals; but if they or he acted wrong, in refusing to deliver up the goods, except upon a condition not warranted by the contract, they only can be made responsible in this form of action, with whom the contract was made; this was Longman & Co., not the defendant Your verdict, therefore, ought to be for the ■defendant Verdict for defendant.