Walton

Appeal from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The following contract was entered into at the date set out therein between defendant Davis, who was doing business under the name of the Imperial Creamery Co., and T. A. Cox:

Plaintiff in his complaint alleged that the foregoing contract was a contract for services to be rendered to defendant, but that Cox in making said contract acted as the agent of plaintiff. Defendant in his answer denied that he had contracted at all with the plaintiff, but admitted that he had contracted with Cox in the form set out in the complaint. The evidence showed that Cox had proceeded under the contract to haul cream for defendant, but at the end of the second month a notice was given by defendant to Cox informing the latter that his services would not be longer required. No deliveries of cream were thereafter made to defendant by Cox under this contract. The cause of difference which led to the ter mination of Cox’s employment arose from the fact that it was claimed by defendant that the cream tests made under Cox’s direction were not accurate. Plaintiff claimed a large amount of…