Appellate courts should not disturb a trial judge's findings on witness credibility without clear proof of error. Furthermore, a principal is not liable for contracts made by an agent in the name of another entity without authority, and indemnity for an ostensible principal requires proof of actual loss.

Lord Atkin:-

This litigation arises from a series of transactions which their Lordships think are rightly stigmatized as frauds perpetrated by one Deacon upon farmers who were growers of tobacco in Essex County in Ontario in the year 1919. Deacon was at the time, the factory manager of a limited company, the Foster Tobacco Co. Ltd., which carried on business as tobacco manufacturers in Leamington. The Foster Company was in 1919 doing little if any business. In June 1919, Deacon was appointed by the Dominion Company of Montreal their tobacco buyer for the County of Essex or elsewhere in Ontario for one year on a commission of half cent, per pound. Deacon was not to act as tobacco buyer for any other person except the Foster Co. Ltd., without the Dominion Company's written consent. It was alleged by the Foster Company that Deacon, being sent to Montreal to obtain this contract for the company, wrongfully obtained it for himself. Apparently this dispute was disposed of by Deacon agreeing to share with the company or with Mr. Brown, the President of the company, the commission earned under the contract.

The Dominion Tobacco Company was a firm the partners in which were the Messrs, Goldstein, Deacon's authority to buy for the Dominion Company was advertised, but he received from the company instructions not to buy more than 300,000 to 350,000 lbs. Burley tobacco and 75,000 lbs. Virginia tobacco. This limitation was not made public. The buying season began in October. Deacon in fact, bought about 150,000 lbs. of Virginia tobacco and about 1,100,000 lbs. of Burley tobacco. Of the Burley tobacco he bought about 800,000 lbs. in the name of the Dominion Company, and about 300,000 lbs. in the name of the Foster Co. Ltd., telling the sellers in the latter case that though he was using Foster Company's forms he was in fact buying for the Dominion Company. All the Virgina tobacco he appears to have bought in the name of the Dominion Company. The Dominion Company were handed contracts for the 75,000 lbs. of Virginia tobacco and 300,000 lbs. of Burley. They took delivery and those quantities disappear from the dispute. The question arises as to the balances. Eventually Deacon, about January 1920, told the farmers that as to the balance of Burley he had been buying, not for the Dominion Company, but on the instructions of one George Jasperson, who had, authorized him to buy the tobacco for account of the Macdonald Tobacco Co., Ltd. The Macdonald Company is a wealthy corporation who are manufacturers of tobacco. They had been buyers of tobacco on a small scale in Essex County in 1918, and in 1919 had bought largely up to 4,000,000 lbs. through Jasperson, a large buyer in the district. Jasperson had employed a staff of about 16 buyer to buy for the Macdonald Company, the purchases being made in the name of the Macdonald Company and on the Macdonald Company's forms. Both the Macdonald Company and Jasperson repudiate any responsibility for the purchases Jasperson denies that he ever authorizes Deacon to make any purchases for him though he acknowledges that he took over the balance of Virginia tobacco which he says Deacon offered him. The Macdonal Company say they gave no authority to Jasperson, express or implied, to buy an tobacco for them except that which was bought on their forms, of which the have taken delivery. The Dominion Company in December 1923, made an authorized assignment under the Bankrupted Act to trustees. The present appeal to the Board is aconsolidated appeal in two actions.

The action Latimer v. Foster Co. Lt., George Jasperson and W. C. Macdona Registered was an action brought by to farmers from whom Deacon bought on Foster Company's forms. The plaintiffs claim damages for non-acceptance of the tobacco against the Macdonald Company, alternatively against Jasperson, and alternatively against the Foster Company. In the further alternative they claim damages for fram against Jasperson and the Macdonald Company. The action, Plumb v.