platr;lt;:tJiat they have net been divested of their title; atid tbttt they are now entitled to have a decree declaring and establi$hing their title to the extent indicated,and to recover costs.·Decree accordingly.
FERGUSON et aL
,<Olrcuit Court, D. Washington, N. D. October 8, 1893.} , Where l\,sale of land i$ negotiated by one who, Without specIfic authol'o to act for the owner, and obtains from, the owner a deed Ity,. to the pUrchaser, and receives the purchase ,money, and immediately after completing the transaction Infot'ms the grantor of the sale and the terms, andthe'grantor fails to disavow the sale or make any protest until after expending the whole of themoney and great enthe valullof the land by l'eaSQn of improvements by the pur.clutser 'llIld his vendees, such grantor 'Ylll not be permitted in equity , toclalm'thllt the deed was fraudulently obtained by talse representations .as to1the nature and contents of the instrument by such agent in pursu,g,: conspiracy between him andtlle purchaser. "
rnEquity. Suit by Hester Hatch il\gainst E. o. Ferguson, HenTY Hewitt,. Jr., and the Land to determine adverse dalins title to lanqupon which the city of Everett is in part to annul a deed conveying her title to said land, for Dismissed. A .. IkWa,rner, Stmtton, Lewis & G'ilman, Junius Rochester, and W, Eeebe, for complainant. Fra.n,eis Q. Barlow and Brown & Brownell, for defendants. HANFORD, District Judge. :A general statement of the case, sufficient for the purpose of this decision, is contained in my opinion in the' case of Hatch v. Ferguson, 57 Fed. Rep. 959. The complainant herein is tlre daughter of Josephine Hatch. In her complaJnt she charges that a deed to the defendant Hewitt of her interest' in the lands 'referred to in said opinion was signed by her at the request of the defendant Ferguson, 'Who at the time falsely aJIldfraudulently represented the same to be merely a paper to show:that she 'W1aS of age, and not under his guardianship, and that, belienng. said 'instrument to be such a paper as he represented, she signed it without intending to convey her interest in said land. testimony proves conclusively that she knowingly received and, used the :t'iwney paid as consideratiO'll for said deed, w'ithoutmaking any protest against the sale, and the case might he disposed of in accordance with my opinion in her mother's case. There is, however, additional ground for pronouncing against this compla1nant. She is. able to spea'kand understand the English language; and the rUle in the case 011 Jackson v. Tatebo, (Wash.) 28 Bac.Rep. 916, therefore, does not apply in this case; and, even were the onus probandi upon the defendants, tlhe S'Uit, in my opinion; :must be a failure, for the reason that by a decided preJlO'Dderonce' of the endence it is shown that the complainant was not
. i' /'
RUSS .,. TELFENER.
deceived, she alleges, but, on the contrary, the deed was executed by her freely, voluntarily, and knowingly. Let a decree be entered dismissing the suit, with. costs to the defendants.
(Circuit Court, W. D. Texas, Austin Division.
July 11. 1893.)
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT- UNAUTHORIZED ACTS OF AGENT-RATIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL.
Ratification by a principal of an unauthorized contract made by his agent relates back to the beginning of the. transaction, and, when deliberately made, with a knowledge of the circumstances, cannot be recalled.
SAME-LIMITATION OF AGENT'S AUTHORITy-PRIVATE INSTRUCTIONS.
Private instructions limiting the authority of an agent will not avoid the principal's liability for acts done by the agent in violation thereof, when the other party to the transaction had no reason to know, and no actual knowledge, of such limitation. The denial by defendant that an alleged contract was executed by his duly-authorized agent throws upon plaintiff the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence the legal and binding execution thereof.
SAME-EXECUTION OF CONTRACT BY AGENT-EVIDENCE-BuRDEN OF PROOF.
4. VENDOR AND PURCHASER-DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT-COLLATERAL
In an action for breach of. a contract for the sale of lands by plaintiff he cannot recover any damages for the breach of a collateral contract whereby, for a consideration named, he has agreed to have the lands surveyed and the field notes returned, as required by law·
DAMAGES-MEASURE OF- BREACH OF CONTRACT LANDS.
SALE OF RIGHT IN STATE
The measure of damages for breach of a contract assigning a right to purchase state lands, which has been acquired under Act Tex. July 14,1879, is the difference between the price agreed upon by the parties and the market price of the right at the time of the breach.
PUBLIC LANDS-SALE OF STATE LANDS -TEXAS STATUTE OR'S DECISION-CONCLUSIVENESS.
Under Act Tex. July 14, 18,9, providing for the sale of certain lands owned by the state. the decision of the public surveyor is couclusive, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, on the question whether the purchaser is a "responsible party," within the meaning of section 3 of the act. The light to purchase acquired by application to the public surveyor, as provided in Act Tex. July 14, 1879, providing for the sale of certain state lands, is assignable.
'7. SAME-RIGHT TO PURCHASE.
At Law. Action by George W. Russ against Joseph Telfener for breach of a contract for the purchase of certain rights acquired by plaintiff in state lands. Judgment was given for plaintiff, but on writ of error this was reversed by the supreme court.. 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 930, 145 U. S. 522. The cause is now up for a second trial. Hancock & Shelley and Miller & Fiset, for plaintiff. J. L. Peeler, for defendant. .