Griffith v. Frankfort General Insurance Company

• Decision Date: 28 July 1916
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

159 N.W. 19

34 N.D. 540

R. B. GRIFFITH v. FRANKFORT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation

Supreme Court of North Dakota

July 28, 1916

From a judgment of the District Court of Grand Forks County, Cooley J., defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Murphy & Toner, for appellant.

An agent cannot do indirectly what he is forbidden to do directly. The agent in this case had no authority to bind the company to the promise to pay Griffith any sum of money to reimburse him for advancement made to the injured workman. He had no ostensible or apparent authority to make the alleged promise. Corey v. Hunter, 10 N.D. 5, 84 N.W. 570; Hurley v. Watson, 68 Mich. 531, 36 N.W. 726; Kraniger v. People's Bldg. Soc. 60 Minn. 94, 61 N.W. 904; United States Bedding Co. v. Andre, 105 Ark. 111, 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1019, 150 S.W. 413, Ann. Cas 1914D, 800; Baker v. Seaward, 63 Ore. 350, 127 P 961; Siebold v. Davis, 67 Iowa 560, 25 N.W. 778; Cornish v. Woolverton, 32 Mont. 456, 108 Am. St Rep. 598, 81 P. 4; Trull v. Hammond, 71 Minn. 172 73 N.W. 642; Burchard v. Hull, 71 Minn. 430, 74 N.W. 163; Oberne v. Burke, 30 Neb. 581, 46 N.W. 842; Edwards v. Dooley, 120 N.Y. 540, 24 N.E. 827.

The fact of agency, or the extent of the agent's authority, cannot be proved by the admissions or declarations of the agent. Plano Mfg. Co. v. Root, 3 N.D. 165, 54 N.W. 924; Taylor v. Commercial Bank, 174 N.Y. 181, 62 L.R.A. 783, 95 Am. St. Rep. 564, 66 N.E. 726; Somers v. Germania Nat. Bank, 152 Wis. 210, 138 N.W. 713; Gordon v. Vermont Loan & T. Co. 6 N.D. 454, 71 N.W. 556; Walsh v. St. Paul Trust Co. 39 Minn. 23, 38 N.W. 631.

The doctrine of apparent or ostensible authority in an agent cannot be invoked by one who relied only on the alleged agent's declaration of authority and made no inquiry as to the true situation. Christ v. Garretson State Bank, 13 S.D. 23, 82 N.W. 89; Q. W. LoverinBrowne Co. v. Bank of Buffalo, 7 N.D. 569, 79 N.W. 923.

Implied authority of an agent can only be implied from facts. Such authority, if it exists at all, must find its source in the intention of the principal, either express or implied. If that intention cannot be shown the authority cannot exist. Mechem Agency, §§ 274, 289, 290, pp. 176, 177, 190, 191; Pehl v. Fanton, 17 Cal.App. 247, 119 P. 400; Sullivant v. Jahren, 71 Kan. 127, 79 P. 1071; Brown v. Grady, 16 Wyo. 151, 92 P. 622; Downing Invest. Co. v. Coolidge, 46 Colo. 345, 104 P. 392; Speer v. Craig, 16 Colo. 478, 27 P. 891; Bank v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co. 95 Cal. 1, 29 Am. St. Rep. 85, 30 P. 96; Schaeffer v. Consolidated Nat. Mut. Ben. L. Ins. Co. 38 Mont. 459, 100 P. 225; Stock Exch. Bank v. Williamson, 6 Okla. 348, 50 P. 93; Mitrovich v. Fresno Fruit Packing Co. 123 Cal. 379, 55 P. 1064; Ming v. Pratt, 22 Mont. 262, 56 P. 279; Saving & L. Soc. v. Gerichten, 64 Cal. 520, 2 P. 405; Rust v. Eaton, 24 F. 830; Merritt v. Wassenich, 49 F. 785; United States Bedding Co. v. Andre, 105 Ark. 111, 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1019, 150 S.W. 413, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 800; Wilson v. Shocklee, 94 Ark. 301, 126 S.W. 832; McGraw v. O'Neil, 123 Mo.App. 691, 101 S.W. 132; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Allen, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 576, 94 S.W. 417; Heath v. Paul, 81 Wis. 532, 51 N.W. 876; Siebold v. Davis, 67 Iowa 560, 25 N.W. 778; Miller v. Sawbridge, 29 Minn. 442, 13 N.W. 671; Kinman v. Botts, 147 Iowa 474, 124 N.W. 773; Spies v. Stein, 70 Neb. 641, 97 N.W. 752; Wilken v. Voss, 120 Iowa 500, 94 N.W. 1123; Staten v. Hammer, 121 Iowa 499, 96 N.W. 964; De Sollar v. Hanscome, 158 U.S. 216, 39 L.Ed. 956, 15 S.Ct. 816.

The plaintiff here could not recover under the policy of insurance. If he could not so recover, it was because of the prohibitive terms of the policy, and if the policy was voided by the violation of these prohibitive terms, then these terms could not have been waived and must have been in full force at the time of the trial. Hammer v. Downing, 39 Ore. 504, 64 P. 651, 65 P. 17, 990, 67 P. 30.

It is a general rule that an action for money had and received cannot be resorted to where there is a contract open and unexecuted and the breach of the contract is the basis of the suit. Vincent v. Rogers, 30 Ala. 471; Barrera v. Somps, 113 Cal. 97, 45 P. 177, 572; Rollins v. Duffy, 14 Ill.App. 69; Atkinson v. Scott, 36 Mich. 18; Peltier v. Sewall, 3 Wend. 269; Chesapeake & O. Canal Co. v. Knapp, 9 Pet. 541, 9 L.Ed. 222; Charles v. Dana, 14 Me. 383; Field v. Banks, 177 Mass. 36, 58 N.E. 155; Richards v. Killam, 10 Mass. 239, 6 Am. Dec. 119; Clark v. Sherman, 5 Wash. 681, 32 P. 771; Distler v. Dabney, 3 Wash. 200, 28 P. 335; Middleport Woolen Mills Co. v. Titus, 35 Ohio St. 253.

There are no promises in the contract to pay plaintiff anything. Plaintiff being a stranger to the contract and its consideration, and there being nothing in it to indicate that it was made for his benefit, a suit thereon by plaintiff is not maintainable. Parlin v. Hall, 2 N.D. 473, 52 N.W. 405; Burton v. Larkin, 36 Kan. 246, 59 Am. Rep. 541, 13 P. 398; Savings Bank v. Thornton, 112 Cal. 255, 44 P. 466; Baxter v. Camp, 71 Conn. 245, 42 L.R.A. 514, 71 Am. St. Rep. 169, 41 A. 803; Wright v. Terry, 23 Fla. 160, 2 So. 6; Lowe v. Turpie, 147 Ind. 652, 37 L.R.A. 233, 44 N.E. 25, 47 N.E. 150; German State Bank v. Northwestern Water & Light Co. 104 Iowa 717, 74 N.W. 685; Greenwood v. Sheldon, 31 Minn. 254, 17 N.W. 478; Frerking v. Thomas, 64 Neb. 193, 89 N.W. 1005; Washburn v. Interstate Invest. Co. 26 Ore. 436, 36 P. 533, 38 P. 620; Montgomery v. Rief, 15 Utah 495, 50 P. 623; Davis v. Patrick, 122 U.S. 138, 30 L.Ed. 1090, 7 S.Ct. 1102; Fish & H. Co. v. New England Homestake Co. 27 S.D. 221, 130 N.W. 841.

Plaintiff is here trying to enforce, for his own benefit, a contract between defendant and Westby, and hence is bound by the rule that prior oral negotiations, promises, and statements are merged in the written contract, and will not be permitted to contradict same. 21 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1079, and cases cited; Schultz v. Plankinton Bank, 141 Ill. 116, 33 Am. St. Rep. 290, 30 N.E. 346; Sayre v. Burdick, 47 Minn. 367, 50 N.W. 245; Schneider v. Kirkpatrick, 80 Mo.App. 145; Selchow v. Stymus, 26 Hun, 145; Hankinson v. Riker, 10 Misc. 185, 30 N.Y.S. 1040; Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. 55 Minn. 242, 22 L.R.A. 390, 56 N.W. 815; Wodock v. Robinson, 148 Pa. 503, 24 A. 73.

The release here is not a mere receipt; it is a complete contract, and, standing unimpeached for fraud or mistake, precludes all parties. Hess v. Great Northern R. Co. 98 Minn. 198, 108 N.W. 7, 803; Hubbard v. Hartford F. Ins. Co. 33 Iowa 325, 11 Am. Rep. 125; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. VanOrdstrand, 67 Kan. 386, 73 P. 113; Barker v. Northern P. R. Co. 65 F. 461; Louisville Veneer Mills Co. v. Clemonts, 33 Ky. L. Rep. 106, 109 S.W. 308; McCormick v. St. Louis, 166 Mo. 315, 65 S.W. 1038; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Sullivan, 21 Colo. 302, 41 P. 501; Jossey v. Georgia Southern & F. R. Co. 109 Ga. 439, 34 S.E. 664; Christianson v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 67 Minn. 94, 69 N.W. 640, 16 Am. Neg. Cas. 314.

A receipt is the mere written acknowledgment of the fact of payment. Thompson v. Layman, 41 Minn. 295, 42 N.W. 1061; Ryan v. Ward, 48 N.Y. 204, 8 Am. Rep. 539; Sargeant v. National L. Ins. Co. 189 Pa. 341, 41 A. 351.

A receipt is a mere evidence of a fact, and differs from a release, which extinguishes a pre-existing right. Equitable Securities Co. v. Talbert, 49 La.Ann. 1393, 22 So. 762.

A receipt in full may be explained or disputed, but a release estops and concludes forever. Crane v. Alling, 15 N.J.L. 423; Sherburne v. Goodwin, 44 N.H. 276; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Read, 37 Ill. 484, 87 Am. Dec. 260; Cory v. Chicago, B. & K. C. R. Co. 100 Mo. 282, 13 S.W. 346; Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. Clough, 20 Wall. 528, 22 L.Ed. 406, 7 Am. Neg. Cas. 317; Webster v. Ela, 5 N.H. 540; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Goodholm, 61 Kan. 758, 60 P. 1066; Walther v. Briggs, 69 Minn. 98, 71 N.W. 909; Thorn Wire Hedge Co. v. Washburn & M. Mfg. Co. 159 U.S. 423, 40 L.Ed. 205, 16 S.Ct. 94.

In contemplation of law, the sum total of the powers which the principal has caused or permitted his agent to seem to possess is the agent's authority. Aldrich v. Wilmarth, 3 S.D. 523, 54 N.W. 811; 40 Century Dig. title, Principal & Agent, § 254.

Instructions to an agent cover not only the powers conferred and which are to be made known to third parties, but also private directions as to the manner in which he shall execute his authority, and not intended to be communicated to third persons dealing with the agent, because of their nature. Bryant v. Moore, 26 Me. 84, 45 Am. Dec. 96; Van Santvoord v. Smith, 79 Minn. 316, 82 N.W. 642; Towle v. Leavitt, 23 N.H. 360, 55 Am. Dec. 195.

These can have no effect to qualify the liability of the principal to third persons, to whom they are not, and are not intended to be made known. Barnes v. Downes, 2 Tex.App. Civ. Cas. (Willson) 472; Young v. Wright, 4 Wis. 144, 65 Am. Dec. 303; Farmers' & M. Bank v. Butchers' & D. Bank, 16 N.Y. 125, 69 Am. Dec. 678; Moore v. Tickle, 14 N. C. (3 Dev. L.) 244; Lauer Brewing Co. v. Schmidt, 24 Pa. S.Ct. 396.

Limitations of authority which are known to a person dealing with an agent are as binding upon such persons as they are upon the agent, and he can acquire no rights against the principal by dealing with the agent contrary thereto. Hutson v Prudential Ins. Co. 122 Ga. 847, 50 S.E. 1000; Lucas v. Rader, 29 Ind.App. 287, 64 N.E. 488; Fritz v. Chicago Grain & Elevator Co. 136 Iowa 699, 114 N.W. 193; Seven Hills Chautauqua Co. v. Chase Bros. Co. 26 Ky. L. Rep. 334, 81 S.W. 238; Carson v. Culver, 78 Mo.App. 597; Bradley v. Basta, 71 Neb. 169, 98 N.W. 697; Dietz v. City Nat. Bank, 42 Neb. 584, 60 N.W. 896; Catoir v. American L. Ins. & T. Co. 33 N.J.L. 487; Gilbert v. Doshon, 107 N.Y....