Etheridge, Fulghum & Co. v. L. Hilliard & Co.

*253 Davis, J., (after stating the facts). Whether the sale of cotton made by a factor, or agent, or commission 'merchant in the State of Virginia for his principal in this State, who shipped it to him for sale in the regular course of business,, such factor or commission merchant selling it, without any notice or knowledge of any claim by another, and paying over the proceeds to his principal without such knowledge or notice, is such a conversion by him as will make him liable-to the actual owner for the proceeds of the cotton so sold and paid over to his principal, it is not necessary for us to deeide-in this action. The case states that J. L. Whedbee was authorized and directed to prepare and house the crops for market, and that the proceeds of the cotton in question were so used by him, and that he had no other means for that purpose. But counsel for the plaintiffs say, “ the case does not state who gave this authority or direction.” The clear and only reasonable-inference is, that, as it existed, it was given by some one who had the power to give it, and this, we assume, could only have come from the plaintiffs. Having, then, the authority from the plaintiffs to house and. prepare the crops for market, he had the implied authority from them to use the necessary and proper means to that end. The proceeds of the cotton were used by him as the means,, and, as the case shows, the only means which he possessed for that purpose. The plaintiffs, thus by and through an agent authorized by them, received the benefit of the- proceeds of the cotton, and to allow them to take the benefit of his act and to repudiate so much of it as was against them, though necessary and proper in the execution of the authority given, would be to reverse the ordinary rules of fair dealing, and make fraud easy and profitable. Whedbee- had the authority from the plaintiffs to house and prepare the crops for market, and this carried with it the- implied authority to use the means- necessary for that *254 purpose, and, in this respect, the plaintiffs were bound by his acts. Huntley v. Mathias, 90 N. C., 101, and the cases there cited. There is no error. No error. Affirmed.