Rubbo v. Hughes Provision Co.

Appellant submits two questions for decision:

1. Does the doctrine of agency by estoppel apply?

2. Did the trial court err in charging that the violation of Section 12760, General Code, constituted negligence per se?

Appellant argues that because the husband alone relied upon the belief that he was buying the rabbits from the appellant, and that appellee knew nothing of the purchase of the rabbits until her husband brought them home, appellant may not be held liable.

We agree with the Court of Appeals in its opinion: “That when the provision company advertised the sale of rabbits in their place…