Eau Claire Grocer Co. vs. Hubbard. was in aid of the assignments. If the circumstances had been reversed, so that such a construction would have defeated the assignments, especially in the face of a manifest legislative policy to favor such dispositions of property by the voluntary acts of insolvents, whether the same results would have been reached is by no means certain. The cases are not considered in conflict with the decision of this case. By the Court. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. INDEX. ABANDONMENT. See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 4. ACTION. Cause of action. See AGENCY, 6, 8, 9. ATTACHMENT. BANKS. CIVIL RIGHTS, 1. CONTRACTS, 9. CORPORATIONS. 4, 5, 8, 9. CREDITOR'S ACTION. EJECTMENT, 1. EQUITY, 1. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, 1, 2. FORECLOSURE, 1. FRAUDS, STATUTE OF, 1. GARNISHMENT, 1. GUARDIAN AND WARD, 1, 2. INJUNCTION, 2. INSURANCE, 1. JOINT LIABILITY, 1. LANDLORD AND TENANT, 1. MANDAMUS, 1. MASTER AND SERVANT, 4, 8. MORTGAGES, 2, 3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 8, 9. NEGLIGENCE, 3, 4. QUANTUM MERUIT. SALE, 2. By whom to be brought. See FRAUDS, STATUTE OF, 1. GARNISHMENT, 1. GUARDIAN AND WARD, 1, 2, 3. MANDAMUS, 1. MORTGAGES, 2, 3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 8. PARTIES, 1, 2. Election of remedy. See CREDITOR'S ACTION. AGENCY. See COMPROMISE. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 1. A principal is not bound by a compromise made by his agent, unless the latter had authority to make it. Barker v. Ring, 53 2. One who, as general agent for another, has full discretionary power to carry on his principal's business and conduct it according to his own discretion, to buy goods on credit or otherwise, to attend to the payments therefor, and to procure funds for that purpose as occasion may require, has, as incident thereto, the power to borrow money in his principal's name when necessary in such business. McDermott v. Jackson, 64 3. Upon proof that an agent had for years had charge of his principal's business, managing it apparently as his own, buying goods and incurring large indebtedness without objection by the principal so far as the public knew, held, that it was a question for the jury whether he had authority to borrow money on the credit of his principal. Ibid. 4. If a principal, after he has knowledge that money has been loaned to his agent on his credit and used in his business, refuses to return the money, he thereby ratifies the loan, though it was unauthorized when made. Ibid. 5. Proof that a certain person had prepared a catalogue of the cattle belonging to the estate of a deceased person, and that he answered plaintiff's letter addressed to such estate in relation to such cattle, and sent one of his catalogues, and that he afterward received money for the purchase of the cattle selected by the plaintiff and bid them in for him at the administrators' sale, held not to be sufficient to establish that he was agent for the administrators. Newell v. Clapp, 104 6. A person cannot be charged as principal by a statement of account for goods claimed to have been sold to his agent on his credit. which was rendered or sent to such agent, and of which he had no notice or knowledge. Knapp v. Smith, 111 7. The assignor for the benefit of creditors of a stock of goods, being placed in charge thereof by the assignee, bought other goods on credit, professing to act as agent for such assignee, and put them with the assigned goods and sold some of them. The assignor afterward settled with his creditors, and his goods and the proceeds of those sold were delivered to him by the assignee before any claim was made on account of the goods so purchased. Held, that such assignee did not ratify the purchase. Ibid. 8. A person who, representing to another that he is authorized to sell certain property on specified terms, agrees to pay to the latter a commission in case he will find a purchaser therefor on those terms, makes himself personally liable for such commission when earned, if he had no authority to sell the property. Oliver v. Morawetz, 332 9. The unauthorized agent who makes such contract in the name of the principal is liable as on an implied warranty of authority, and an action for a breach thereof is a proper remedy. Ibid. See COSTS, 1, 2. COUNTY COURT, 1, 2. HIGHWAYS, 1, 2. From what may be taken. 1. Although it is irregular for a plaintiff whose judgment has been reversed on appeal, and the cause remanded for a new trial, subject to an option on his part to remit a portion of his recovery and take a judgment for the balance, to issue an execution under the original judgment, for its amount less the sum remitted, without entering a new judgment, yet, an order denying defendant's motion to set aside such an execution is held not to be a final order affecting a substantial right, made in special proceedings or upon a summary application in an action "after judgment," within the meaning of subd. 2, sec. 1, ch. 212, Laws of 1895, and therefore was not appealable. Gauche v. Milbrath, 147 2. An order granting a new trial after judgment is not now appealable. Chapter 380, Laws of 1897, has no application to such a case. Davison v. Brown, 93 Wis. 85, followed. Welbes v. Dieter, 166 3. An order,.made in an action upon a benefit certificate brought by the devisee of the assured, setting aside a judgment against the defendant obtained therein by default, and staying proceedings until distribution of the estate of the devisor, is not appealable. It is not a final order affecting a substantial right made on a summary application in an action after judgment, within the meaning of subd. 2, sec. 1, ch. 212, Laws of 1895, nor is it one of the orders mentioned in subd. 3 as appealable. Ledebuhr v. Grand Grove Order of Druids, 341 4. Where a judgment against a garnishee, rendered in a justice's court, has been reversed on appeal by the superior court, an order by that court requiring the plaintiff to restore to the garnishee the amount collected on said judgment is appealable to the supreme court. It is not a judgment, but is a final order affecting a substantial right, made in a special proceeding, within the meaning of subd. 2, ch. 212, Laws of 1895. Lewis v. C. & N. W. R. Co. 368 5. An order of an appellate court refusing to compel a justice of the peace to make a return to an appeal from a judgment rendered by him is one that affects a substantial right and practically prevents a judgment from which an appeal can be taken, since the return is essential to a trial of the appeal, and such order is therefore, under subd. 1. sec. 1, ch. 212, Laws of 1895, appealable to the supreme court. Allard v. Smith, 534 6. Where the defendant in ejectment did not, in that action, counterclaim for taxes paid and improvements made by him, but, after being defeated, brought an independent action therefor under subd. 3, sec. 3097, R. S., against one to whom the plaintiff in ejectment had conveyed the land, and who at the time held the record title but in fact had no interest or title in it, and by his answer disclaimed any, held, that a judgment that the plaintiff had a lien upon such land to a specified amount and that he recover a certain amount for costs, and that both sums be adjudged a lien upon the land superior to the claim of the defendant in that action and his assigns, and that the land be sold for the payment thereof. was simply a judgment of lien, and the defendant was not damnified nor aggrieved thereby and could not appeal from it. Herndon v. Bock, 548 Certificate of judge, when required. 7. Upon appeal by a garnishee from a judgment in its favor for costs, because only $104.96 was allowed it as costs, held, that a certificate by the trial judge which presented as the question to be determined whether it was within the discretionary power of the court, "on the facts as they appear in the foregoing bill of exceptions," to reduce the garnishee's costs as was done and on the grounds on which it was done, was clearly insufficient to answer the requirements of ch. 215, Laws of 1895, in that it failed to state the ultimate facts on which the question of law arose, so that the court could determine it without reference to the record. Dowling v. Lancashire Ins. Co. 50 8. An appeal by the relator in a mandamus case from that part only of the judgment in his favor which awards a specified amount of costs, on the ground that they are inadequate, is not permissible without a certificate of the judge as required by sec. 1, ch. 215, Laws of 1895. A bill of exceptions certified to contain all the evidence will not supply its place. State ex rel. Buchanan v. Kellogg, Questions considered. 532 9. The objection that the plaintiff in a garnishment case failed to offer in evidence the record in the principal suit cannot be taken for the first time in the appellate court. Mace v. Roberts, 199 10. Upon appeal by one of several defendants from a judgment against himself, the appellate court cannot consider whether the trial court erred in granting a nonsuit in favor of another of the defendants. Cooper v. City of Milwaukee, 458 11. Upon a second appeal, where the evidence is substantially the same Affirmance or reversal. 12. If the evidence in a case is sufficient to fairly sustain the finding by 93 129 184 15. A judgment which is clearly right will not be reversed on appeal, 332 16. A finding, in an action by an assignee to foreclose a mortgage se- 18 A question which was determined by the lower court solely on the 476 515 22. The supervision which courts exercise over judgments entered by 23. The error, if any, in taxing costs in a judgment entered by warrant 24. In a case where all the questions essential to the plaintiff's right of |