ther. He acted as her general agent, and gave me chief control under him. My duties were the general supervision of the farm. My authority simply consisted in threshing this wheat, and hauling it to market, and everything of that kind. I had no authority to settle any bills or anything of that kind; but had authority to settle the Rugg account, if I could. I received instructions by telegram from Mr. Pickert to arrange the claim, but not to pay any costs.” It is obvious that White had no such general authority in the management of plaintiff's business as would authorize him to compromise a cause of action in her favor arising from the conversion of her property. Nor did the court err, as against defendants, in submitting to the jury the question of White’s special authority to settle plaintiff's claim against defendants. Rozell Pickert, plaintiff's general agent, denied that he gave him any such authority. He said: “I never gave White any authority to settle any suits at all. I simply stated in a telegram to White that I would pay these bills to Hope, without costs.” Giving White’s testimony the most favorable construction, it appears that the fact of special authority to him was a controverted one, and was therefore properly submitted to the jury. But White does not claim that he had any authority to settle plaintiff's claim against defendants for conversion. His power was limited to the adjustment of the Rugg account, which appears to be a claim, not against plaintiff, but against her father.
The third exception to the charge is to that portion of it which, it is claimed, assumes that defendants are liable for the balance of the wheat taken by them, after deducting the amount necessary to settle the Rugg claim and another claim, on which some of plaintiff's wheat was attached, known as the “Starling claim.” We find no error in this. The amount of wheat taken, according to the testimony on the part of the plaintiff, was 6,000 bushels. Assuming all that defendants claim as to the amount of wheat necessary to pay these two claims, and that White, with full power, did settle them by turning over a sufficient amount of the wheat attached, there still remained to be accounted for over 2,000 bushels. It was with reference to this testimony that the court charged the jury that they must de-
