Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/805

 CABLE V, PAINE., 791 �of the logs binding upon Paine & €o, ? There was no evidence of the express (direct) appointment of Idispn to sell them. His author- ity could only be inferred from the relation of the parties, or proved by the subsequent ratification of the contract. Briefly, the court instructed the jury that the relation of the parties, (Idison being defendants' general agent for the sajle of manufactured lumber, sash, doors, etc.,) did net authorize him to make the contract, and left the question of ratification to the jury, omitting such of the instructions asked not pertinent to the case. Neither abstract questions of law were given, nor the exact language of plaintiflf's requests. �In reference to the claim urged, that defendants, with full knowl- edge of Idison's act, and with a copy of the contract in their posses- sion, by acquiescence, had ratified it, the court, in substance, said : When information is given of the action of an agent who exceedg'bis authority, it is the duty of the principal, as soon as possible, to repudiate it. It is not fair dealing, under such circumstances, to reject the contract and not inform the other party, (as the plaintiff in this case,) of its repudiation. This covered the request asked, and I see no error in the instruction. In fact, I am satisfied with the charge, as a whole, and think the case was fairly placed before the jury, according to the testimony. There is, however, a troublesome feature of the case, and a new trial chould be granted. �The plaintiff offered certain letter-press copies of his own letters, containing competent and material evidence. No notice to produce the originals had been given, and they were excluded. ' �On the trial plaintiff 's counsel stated, and now reiterates, Ibat the rule had been established in the lowa district, with the coticurrence of all the judges, "that letter-ptess copies made at the time of letters written and sent by mail between parties to a suit are iiot copies in the sense of the rule requiring notice, but are duplicate originals." I declined to recognize any such rule, but offered to withdraw a juror and postpone the trial to the next term; but for some reason the counsel determined to proceed and accept the decision. I was under the impression at the time that the amount inyolved would permit a writ of error, and the plaintiff, in case of an adverfee verdict,, could take advantage of this ruling against him. It now appears the judgment of this court is conelusive, and while I am of the opinion that the copies were properly excluded and if a writ of eiror could be taken would not disturb the verdict, yet there is a possibility of error in rejecting the evidence. The counsel aSseverates that my opinion is in conflict with airth,e judges of the lowa district. A ��� �