On the general merits of the case, it may be observed that the action is on a contract for goods purchased by defendants. If no such contract of purchase was in fact made, the verdict was right; and this, although goods of the plaintiffs were surreptitiously put into the possession of defendants, and the proceeds of sales made thereof by their employes passed in their hands. While from the fact that goods belonging to one party pass into the possession of another a contract of purchase may sometimes be implied, it will not be implied when it appears that such transfer of possession was surreptitious, and without the knowledge of the latter. A party cannot be compelled to buy property which he does not wish to buy; and no trick of the vendor, conspiring with an agent of such party, by which possession is placed in him, creates on his part a contract of purchase. Nor is any contract of purchase created, even if it also appears that, unknown to the party, his agent who has entered into this wrongful combination has sold the property, and put the proceeds into his principal's possession. Whatever liability might exist in an action brought under those circumstances for money had and received, no action will lie for goods sold and delivered. The party is not responsible under a contract and as a purchaser, whatever may be his liability for the moneys which he has received as the proceeds of the sales. The law in respect to these matters is clear, and the verdict of the jury was fully justified by the testimony. It would be a needless waste of time to develop the various details of the plan by which the plaintiffs and the agent of the defendants sought to take the goods of the plaintiffs, put them in the store of defendants, incorporate them with the general mass of their goods, and secure payment out of the funds of the defendants without their knowledge. As might be expected, reliance was placed on the confidence and powers reposed and vested in Hewes by the defendants, and his familiarity with the details of their business. The plan worked successfully so far as regarded the introduction of the goods into the store of the defendants without their knowledge; but Hewes was not so successful in ecu ring payment; so that, after nearly a year and a quarter, over $30,000, according to the price agreed upon between Hewes and the plaintiffs, for goods thus transmitted, was still unpaid. It is true that the plaintiffs, and their agent by whom the arrangement was in the first instance made, denied the existence of any such arrangement. Upon this question of fact the verdict of the jury would be conclusive; and, notwithstanding their denial, the whole conduct of the business, as developed by their own testimony, makes strongly in favor of the truthfulness of Hewes in respect to the transaction. The verdict of the jury properly responded to the testimony.