Madill v. Spokane Cattle Loan Co.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
• Writing for the Court: WILLIAM A. LEE, J.
• Citation: 230 P. 45,39 Idaho 754
• Parties: B. C. MADILL and A. W. MILLER, Copartners Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of LAVA MERCANTILE COMPANY, Respondents, v. SPOKANE CATTLE LOAN COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant
• Decision Date: 23 October 1924

230 P. 45

39 Idaho 754

B. C. MADILL and A. W. MILLER, Copartners Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of LAVA MERCANTILE COMPANY, Respondents,
v.
SPOKANE CATTLE LOAN COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant

Supreme Court of Idaho

October 23, 1924

AGENCY - AUTHORITY OF AGENT - EXPRESS AND IMPLIED - PRINCIPAL ESTOPPED TO DENY.

1. Where a foreign corporation engaged in making loans upon bands of sheep which are being run upon the public range in this state has an agent within the state whose authority was to inspect and renew such loans, such agent has implied authority to bind his principal upon a contract for supplies furnished to an outfit upon which the company had a mortgage to the full value of the sheep.

2. A principal will not be permitted to claim that its agent acted beyond his authority where such acts were within the apparent scope of the agent's authority and the obligations incurred were for the benefit and protection of its interests.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, for Bannock County. Hon. O. R. Baum, Judge.

Action on contract. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Judgment of the district court affirmed, with costs to respondents.

G. D. McClintock, for Appellant.

A party who avails himself of the act of an agent must bear the burden of proof that agency exists and that the contract relied upon was within the scope of the agent's authority. (American Car & Foundry Co. v. Alexandria Water Co., 221 Pa. 529, 128 Am. St. 749, 70 A. 847; Dispatch Printing Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 109 Minn. 440, 124 N.W. 236, 50 L. R. A., N. S., 74; Pullman Co. v. Meyer, 195 Ala. 397, 70 So. 763; O'Daniel v. Streeby, 77 Wash. 414, 137 P. 1025, L. R. A. 1915F, 635; Dodds v. Maryland Casualty Co., 166 Ky. 70, 178 S.W. 1134; John Stember Co. v. Keene (Tex. Civ.), 152 S.W. 661; Beal v. Adams Express Co., 13 Pa. S.Ct. 143; T. H. Baker & Co. v. Kellett-Chatham Mach. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 84 S.W. 661.)

To authorize an inference of implied authority in an agent it must appear that the thing done or the transaction made was necessary in order to promote the duty or carry out the purpose expressly designated to him. (United States Bedding Co. v. Andre, 105 Ark. 111, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 800, 150 S.W. 413, 41 L. R. A., N. S., 1019; Powell & Powell v. King Lumber Co., 168 N.C. 632, 84 S.E. 1032; Ricker Nat. Bank v. Stone, 21 Okla. 833, 97 P. 577; Miner v. Edison Elec. Illumination Co., 22 Misc. 543, 50 N.Y.S. 218.)

One who deals with an agent, by the mere fact that he is dealing with an agent, is put upon notice to ascertain the nature and extent of the agent's authority. If he deals with him without doing so, he does so at his peril. (Brutinel v. Nygren, 17 Ariz. 491, 154 P. 1042; Woodworth v. School Dist. No. 2, 92 Wash. 456, 159 P. 757.)

The apparent authority of an agent is to be implied by the acts of the principal and not by the acts of the agents. (Wierman v. Bay City-Michigan Sugar Co., 142 Mich. 422, 106 N.W. 75; Paul Armstrong Co. v. Majestic Motion Picture Co., 87 Misc. 141, 149 N.Y.S. 1039; Halladay v. Underwood, 90 Ill.App. 130; Fike v. Ott, 76 Neb. 439, 107 N.W. 774.)

The payment of drafts by the principal is not competent evidence to support a claim of agency. (Cupples v. Stanfield, 35 Idaho 466, 207 P. 326.)

Peterson & Coffin and Chas. H. Darling, for Respondent.

The evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict. (Trainer v. Morrison, 78 Me. 160, 57 Am. Rep. 790, 3 A. 185; Sharp v. Knox, 48 Mo.App. 169; Oak Leaf Mill Co. v. Cooper, 103 Ark. 79, 146 S.W. 130; Austrian & Co. v. Springer, 94 Mich. 343, 34 Am. St. 350, 54 N.W. 50; Hillyard v. Hewitt, 61 Ore. 58, 120 P. 750; Midland Sav. & Loan Co. v. Sutton, 30 Okla. 448, 120 P. 1007; 2 C. J. 461, 917, 933, 941, 942; Arthur v. Gard, 3 Colo. App. 133, 32 P. 343; Waniorek v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 17 Cal.App. 121, 118 P. 947; Brutinel v. Nygren, 17 Ariz. 491, 154 P. 1042; Union Gold Min. Co. v. Rocky Mtn. Nat. Bank, 2 Colo. 248; 1 Mechem on Agency, p. 246; Triller v. Sadle, 92 Neb. 579, 138 N.W. 728; Blood v. La Serena etc. Water Co., 113 Cal. 221, 41 P. 1017, 45 P. 252; Severs v. Cleveland Coal Co., 158 Iowa 574, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 188, 138 N.W. 793; Powell-Sanders Co. v. Carssow, 28 Idaho 201, 152 P....