This case was heard on the report of referee, at the March Term, 1880, Barrett, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. The referee reported as follows :

That the citizens of Brandon celebrated the 4th of July, 1876 ; that various committees were chosen to make arrangements for such celebration ; among others, a “ powder committee,” an “ executive committee,” &c. Defendant was a member of the executive committee, and as such member he bought of plaintiff, to be used in the celebration aforesaid, twenty-one kegs of powder at the. agreed price of four dollars per keg. Plaintiff purchased said powder expressly for this purpose. The funds to pay the expenses of said celebration had been raised by subscription among the citizens ; but were insufficient to pay all bills. At the time of the purchase of said powder of plaintiff by this defendant, the plaintiff asked him his authority, and he (the defendant) told him “ Mr. Pitts, the chairman of the executive committee, is my authority.” I find that plaintiff understood that defendant himself was the committee to buy powder, or one of the committee, and the responsible man. Neither party testified to the exact language or conversation used on the occasion of the purchase of said powder. Defendant had nothing further to do with the powder matter except the purchase as above stated. No dispute was made as to plaintiff’s account except the item for said powder. Plaintiff first charged said powder to the “ centennial committee,” and afterwards charged it to defendant, by name. The undisputed item of $47.99 I allow with interest from 1st March, 1878, $8.45, making $56.44; and if, on the foregoing facts, the court decides that the defendant is liable for said powder, then, I find due the additional sum of $84, and interdst from 4th of July, 1876, $18,14, making $102.14, and making in the whole, $158.58.

The contract is the defendant’s ; if he intended not to incur personal liability, he should see that he give a remedy against some principal. Proctor v. Webber, 1 D. Chip. 371; 13 Johns. 57 ; White et al. v. Skinner, lb. 307 ; Ives v. Hulett, 12 Yt. 314; Boyce v. Allen, 28 Yt. 234. The most the defendant can say, is, that he is liable with others ; but he can take advantage of the non-joinder only by plea in abatement. McQ-regor v. Balch et al., 17 Yt. 562; Hyde v. Lawrence, 49 Yt. 361.

The defendant in this case makes the following claims:

1. That the defendant did not, in the purchase of the powder in this case, pledge his personal credit, and that the plaintiff did not understand him to pledge his personal credit, and that the plaintiff had no right to understand him as pledging his personal credit.

2. That the powder was ordered solely upon the credit and under the authority of Mr. Pitts.

3. If it is thought that the defendant, in ordering the powder, was acting in his official capacity as a member of the executive committee, rather than as agent for Mr. Pitts, still the defendant is not liable.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress