Legal Opinion
Kroeger, Supt. v. Brody
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 25, 1936No. 25686PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtZimmerman, J.
All dealings in respect to the deposit of the $3,000 in question were with the then president of the company and reliance was placed solely on his representations. For the purposes of this discussion we shall assume he agreed to take the money for the company as an interest-bearing savings account. Did he possess such authority and was the company bound thereby?
A generally accepted rule of law is thus stated by the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey, in the syllabus of Myrtle Avenue Corp. v. Mt. Prospect Building & Loan Assn., 112 N. J. L., 60, 169 A., 707:
“A corporation is bound by…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bradford Belting Co. v. GibsonOhio Supreme Court · 1903
- Draeger v. Kent County Savings Ass'n.Michigan Supreme Court · 1928
- Dorrity v. Greater Durham Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
- Myrtle Avenue Corp. v. Mt. Prospect Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1934
- Gary-Hobart Savings & Loan Ass'n v. StrongIndiana Court of Appeals · 1934
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Needham v. the Provident BankOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
- Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2004
- Miller v. Wick Building Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1950
- Benjamin v. PipolyOhio Court of Appeals · 2003
- Cuyahoga County Hospitals v. PriceOhio Court of Appeals · 1989
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.