The Northwestern Reporter Volume 163 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1917 Excerpt: ...Where one receives $600 for another, and that other is advised of the fact he may not take $300 of the sum paid in, agree to defer payment of the balance, treat the $300 paid over as received upon authority, and deny there was authority to receive all because part was not paid over. We cannot escape it will not avail to say that an agent who was authorized to receive $600 paid to her but half of that sum. In essence, the trial court permitted a ratification which adopted only so much as was beneficial to plaintiff. We are of opinion that Himmel was the agent of this plaintiff and never the agent of the defendant, and that any loss suf fered because the agent was guilty of a breach.of duty must fall on the plaintiff, and not upon the defendant. 2 3a. It is urged that, though Himmel had the note in his possession, defendant cannot be said to have paid the note to one apparently the rightful holder or owner thereof. The argument Is that this results from the fact that the note bore no indorsement of payment other than interest, and that the mortgage was never formally released. We do not agree to such deduction from these premises. It follows the decree of the district court must be reversed. GATNOR, C. J., and LADD, J., concur in the result but do not wish to be bound by paragraph II of the opinion. EVANS, J., concurs. WEAVER, PRESTON, and STEVENS, JJ., took no part STUTSMAN v. DBS MOINES CITY RY. CO. (No. 31397.) (Supreme Court of Iowa. June 23, 1917.) 1. Appeal And Error =-104S(o)--Harmless Error--Admission Of Evidence. Overruling objection to a question to plaintiff's physician as to whether plaintiff related to him facts concerning her injury wag harmless, where the witness stated that plaintiff merely tuld him that she had been so injured, and did n...