
    McDowell vs. McKenzie.
    A merchant whose agent purchased goods in New York on a credit'— • although the credit was unauthorized—cannot refuse to pay, when he has received and sold the goods, and pocketed the proceeds; especially where he has paid other bills made by the same agent.
    Principal and agent. Before Judge HOOD. Clay Superior Court. March Term, 1880.
    McKenzie sued McDowell on an account for goods purchased by his agent. On the trial, the jury found for plaintiff, and defendant excepted. The facts are stated in the decision.
    
      Kennon & Hood, for plaintiff in error.
    E. C. Bower, for defendant.
   Jackson, Chief Justice.

This case turns on a single question: Can a merchant in Georgia, whose agent buys goods in New York, though on credit, and the credit unauthorized by the Georgia merchant, legally refuse to pay for the goods, when they have gone into his possession, been sold for him and he has pocketed the proceeds, especially when he had paid other bills bought on a credit by the same agent? To propound the question plainly is to answer it in law, as well as in good sense and common honesty.

Judgment affirmed.  