Elfring v. New Birdsall Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from, circuit court, Codington county. Hon. Julian Bennett, Judge. Action by John H. Elfring and others against the New Birdsall Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. Agencies cannot be established by the admissions or statements of the agent.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, circuit court, Codington county. Hon. Julian Bennett, Judge. Action by John H. Elfring and others against the New Birdsall Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. Agencies cannot be established by the admissions or statements of the agent. Gordon v. Loan & Trust Co. 71 N. W. 556; Plano Co. v. Root, 54 N. W. 924; Lovering Brown Co. v. Bank of Buffalo, 75 N. W. 923; La Rue v. St. Anthony and D. Elevator Company, 3 S. D. 637. ■ When the agent has not the possession of the goods and no other indicia of authority and is only…
1Opinion of the CourtHaney, P. J.
In this action the plaintiffs seek to recover damages for the alleged breach of a contract to sell certain threshing machinery. They reside at or near Watertown, in this state. The defendant is a corporation doing business at Auburn, in the state of New York. On July 27, 1898,- an order signed by the plaintiffs, addressed to the defendant,- at Auburn, was mailed at Watertown. It was written on a blank furnished by the defendant, and contained, inter alia, the following pro*256visions and conditions: “This order is taken subject to the approval of the New Birdsall Company of Auburn, N. Y. * * * We…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Shull v. New Birdsall Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1901
3Cited by2 opinions
- State Highway Commission v. BloomSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1958
- Elfring v. New Birdsall Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1903