Midland Sav. & Loan Co. v. Sutton
Decision Date | 12 December 1911 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 1464 |
Citation | 1911 OK 510,120 P. 1007,30 Okla. 448 |
Parties | MIDLAND SAVINGS & LOAN CO. v. SUTTON et al. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT--Authority of Agent--Questions for Jury. The question of agency and the extent and scope of the agent's authority are to be determined by the jury, as other facts, from the evidence.
2. SAME--Authority of Agent--Questions for Jury. The apparent authority of an agent is to be gathered from all the facts and circumstances in evidence, and is a question of fact for the jury. ( Minn. Thresh. Mach. Co. v. Humphrey, 27 Okla. 694, 117 P. 203.
3. SAME--Estoppel to Deny Agency. One who leads an innocent party to rely on the appearance of another's authority to act for him will not be heard to deny the agency to the party's prejudice. ( U. S. Fid. & G. Co. v. Shirk, 20 Okla. 576, 95 P. 218.)
4. SAME--Authority of Agent--Presumptions. Parties dealing with a known agent have a right to presume that the agency is general, and not special, and the presumption is that one known to be an agent is acting within the scope of his authority.
5. SAME--Authority of Agent--Burden of Proof. The authority of an agent to receive payment for his principal must be proved by the party making payment; but the proof need not be direct, it may be inferred from the circumstances of the case.
6. TRIAL--Questions of Law or Fact--Conflicting Evidence. Where there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain the issues on the part of the plaintiff and the evidence on the part of the defendant conflicts therewith, the determination thereof is for the jury. ( Taylor v. Ins. Co., 25 Okla. 92, 105 P. 354, 138 Am. St. Rep. 906.)
Error from Superior Court, Pittsburg County; P. D. Brewer, Judge.
Action by Ellis Sutton and another against the Midland Savings & Loan Company for the cancellation of a real estate mortgage and the recovery of a statutory penalty for failure to release. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
F. H. Kellogg and A. J. Bryant, for plaintiff in error
W. H. Fuller and Geo. M. Porter, for defendants in error
¶1 The only question in this case is one of agency. While many other questions have been raised in the petition in error, and argued by counsel in their briefs, yet by agreement it is now conceded that the only question is whether or not H. E. Swan was the agent of the plaintiff in error, and authorized by it to accept payment in full from defendants in error, of a note and mortgage for and in behalf of the plaintiff in error. It appears from the evidence that H. E. Swan was the principal officer of the Swan Company, and represented the plaintiff in error at McAlester, as its local agent. Plaintiff in error denies that Swan was its agent for the purpose of collecting in full the loan made to the Suttons. Defendants in errer contend that he was the agent for that, as well as many other purposes, and sets up a number of facts as tending to show that Swan was the agent of the company at McAlester, and authorized by it to accept the payment in question. Among the reasons urged by defendants in error, showing that Swan was the agent for this purpose, are the following: First. The plaintiff in error furnished Swan all necessary blanks for soliciting loans made by their company. Second. The president of the plaintiff in error, on page 96 of the record, states that Swan took applications for loans and presented them to the company for approval and was designated as local collector. Third. The inspectors of plaintiff in error, as shown by the witness Cannington, came and dealt with the Swan Company, and recognized it as the agent of the plaintiff in error. Fourth. The Swan Company solicited loans and H. E. Swan solicited the Sutton loan. Fifth. The money for this loan was sent direct to H. E. Swan by draft made payable to defendants in error and Swan. Sixth. Full instructions were sent to the Swan Company accompanied by the draft, as to how the loan should be applied. No instructions were sent to the Suttons. Seventh. Suttons paid Swan no commissions. Commissions were paid to Swan by the plaintiff in error. Eighth. Swan, under the instructions which accompanied the draft, and in supplemental instructions contained in a letter from plaintiff in error to the Swan Company, December 8th, refused to turn the proceeds of the draft over to Suttons. Ninth. Money was paid to the Swan Company for the benefit of plaintiff in error, not only by Suttons, but by many other people. Tenth. A large number of letters written by the plaintiff in error and set up as exhibits in the case-made show conclusively the agency of Swan, which is broad enough in its scope and extent to include the collection of the loan in controversy. Eleventh. Plaintiff in error claims to have sent a letter to defendants in error under date of June 19, 1908, in which it states that the Swan Company, if it collected from them, would do so as their agent. The defendants in error both specifically and emphatically deny that any such letter was ever received by them.
¶2 This loan was negotiated in June, 1909, and plaintiff's Exhibit A, page 137 of the case-made, which is a letter from the plaintiff in error to the Swan Company, reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial