Schutz v. Jordan
that the defendants have not paid the same, nor any part thereof, though due and payable.' The answer at some length developed a defense, which may be briefly stated as follows: That the defendants never purchased the goods in question; that among their various departments was one known as the 'cloak department,' which was in charge of one John H. Hewes, an employe, as superintendent; that, while the superintendents of these various departments had general authority to buy, these defendants, finding that the stock of goods in this department was more than that desired, directed such superintendent not to increase the stock; that such directions were communicated to the plaintiffs; that, disregarding such instructions, they entered into a fraudulent combination with Hewes, by which they were to ship the goods to the defendants, and that he was to receive and distribute them alongside of the other goods in his department. The scheme further contemplated that by reason of the confidence and powers vested in Hewes by the defendants, and his management of the details, payment was to be secured in the name of the defendants, and from their funds, though without their knowledge. In other words, the plan as developed was that the plaintiffs, finding a general agent of defendants with authority to purchase, but aware of special restrictions on that authority, conspired with him to ignore such restrictions, and in defiance thereof to purchase these goods in defendants' name, and secure payment therefor out of the funds of the defendants in their name, and without their knowledge. On trial before a jury the verdict was for the defendants in respect to these matters, and of the judgment entered thereon the plaintiffs now complain. 32 Fed. Rep. 55.

Alexander Blumenstiel, for plaintiffs in error.

Nathaniel Myers, for defendants in error.

BREWER, J. 

Notes
Uncategorized United States Supreme Court decision