The judgment then continues:—The underlying principle which controls this case, as we view it, is one to which defendant's counsel have not referred here, though they thave recently invoked it in another case. As stated by the Supreme Court "Where one of two innocent parties must suffer, through the fraud or negligence of a third party, the loss shall fall upon him who gave the credit." Or, as sometimes expressed, '"'he who makes possible the loss must, bear it." In this case either plaintiff must lose the money it loaned Tillson, in good faith and on the strength of his apparent ownership the goods in question, or defendant must pay it. Which then comes within the maxim just stated Who first "gave the credit" to Till-son? Defendant, who made him its manager and kept him in charge long after the acts of which it now complains were known to its other representative. As the present manager himself says: '(Having the confidence of the company they trusted him.'"' Who made possible the loss? Defendant, by not only itself trusting Tillson but by assuring plaintiff that "his signature can be accepted engaging this firm" and by recognizing his acts up to the ast.
And, important as this principle is everywhere, it is doubly so in this jurisdiction where so many of our nationals constantly engage in transactions like this with those of other nationalities who are unfamiliar with our law, and against whom to apply its technicalities with narrow strictness would not only work injustice to them but would bring disaster to our own commercial interests. If American business is ever to extent abroad as its promoters hope, the law which accompanies it must be administer-jed with due regard to those-who are outside its pale, and, if possible, so as not to conflict with established commercial usage.
Practically all important American business enterprises in China are in charge of a manager whose authority is understood to be general.and extensive. From the standpoint of public policy, any limitations upon it should) be brought home to the local business world. And from that standpoint as well as from that of technical law, we find {no reason for changing the conclusions already. announced. The motion for a new trial is, accordingly overruled.
In this case Messrs. Schuhl Schoenfeld appeared for plaintiffs and Messrs. Williams, Franklin Faison for defendants.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.