Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Cox, Inc.

WIDDSON, O. J.

(after stating the facts as above). As is shown in the statement above, appellee alleged in its petition that appellant acted by its “duly authorized agent” (one Monroe) in making the contract in question. In its answer appellant denied the contract was made' by it or by any one authorized to act for it in making same.

That Monroe was appellant’s agent at the time the contract was entered into (as alleged) conclusively appeared from evidence heard at the trial. ‘ The controversy between the parties with reference to that phase of the case was as to whether the authority of Monroe…