Astoria State Bank v. Markwood
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from Circuit Court, Beadle County. Hon. Auva E. Taylor, Judge. Action by Astoria State Bank, against C. T.Markwood, G. W. Erickson, and Thomas Erickson, to recover on promissory notes. From' a judgment for defendants, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Circuit Court, Beadle County. Hon. Auva E. Taylor, Judge. Action by Astoria State Bank, against C. T.Markwood, G. W. Erickson, and Thomas Erickson, to recover on promissory notes. From' a judgment for defendants, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. (i) To point one of the opinion, Appellant cited: Holi-master v. Black, 74 Ohioi State, i, 84 N. E. 423, 14 American and English Annotated Cases, 877; Corey v. Hunter, (N. D.) 84 N. W. 570. (4) To point four of the opinion, Appellant cited: Hollins-head v. Stuart & Co., (N. D.) 77 N. W. 82; Fargo, et al., v.…
1DissentSmith, J.
('dissenting). I am not satisfied with the reasoning of my majority associates in this case. It seems to me there is error in confusing “proof of actual agency by circumstantial evidence” with proof of “ostensible, agency.” The two things are essentially different. The rule of ostensible agency has its foundation in the doctrine of estoppel, and arises upon proof of circumstances which do not necessarily prove actual agency. Ostensible agency is proved by evidence which tenlds to: show that:
“The principal intentionally or by want of ordinary care causes a third person to believe another to be…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cheney v. LibbySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Hollinshead v. John Stuart & Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1898
- Loizeaux v. FremderWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
- Winer v. Bank of BlythevilleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- State National Bank v. HyattSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.