Woodbury v. Larned
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL EROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP ANOKA COUNTY. Points and authorities of Appellants: First. — The declarations of a person assuming to act as an agent, cannot be given in evidence to affect Ms alleged principal, until tbe fact of agency is first established, and this must be doneby matters aUundetbe acts and declarations of tbe pretended agent.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP ANOKA COUNTY. Points and authorities of Appellants: First. — The declarations of a person assuming to act as an agent, cannot be given in evidence to affect Ms alleged principal, until tbe fact of agency is first established, and this must be doneby matters aUundetbe acts and declarations of tbe pretended agent. Vide Oowen, Hill and Edwards’, notes vol. l,pp. 513-14-15, particularly note 144; Dunlap’s Haley on Agency, 309, 310; IT). 316, 317; Scott vs. Grane, 1 Gown. R. 255. Second. — A party cannot be bound by a ratification, unless upon full knowledge of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Atwatee, J.
Action on promissory note, made by one Craig as principal, and Larned, tbe Respondent, as surety. Larned set up in defence, that the Plaintiff, without tbe consent of tbe surety, bad given the principal an extension of time on the note for a valuable consideration, and that Craig afterward, and before suit brought became insolvent. It appeared that after the Plaintiff received the note in suit, he left tbe same with Marshall & Co., Bankers of St. Paul, and afterwards was absent in Europe. Marshall & Co., having failed, they or their assignee requested a brother *342of the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Humphrey v. HavensSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1867
- Craig v. CraigWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1903
- Eddy, Fenner & Co. v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1862
- Scully v. DodgeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1888
- Gross v. HafemannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.