Austinson v. Kilpatrick

I concur in the majority opinion with respect to the motion to dismiss the appeal and in the result as to the motion to quash the service. The affidavit of the defendant Kilpatrick establishes that he was an employee of the codefendant Shir-riff’s Limited and that the automobile he was driving at the time of the accident was owned by his codefendant. From these facts an inference may be drawn that he was acting as agent for his code-fendant at the time of the accident. 61 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 526, page 507. See also Carlson v. Hoff, 59 N.D. 393, 230 N.W. 294; Clark v. Feldman, 57 N.D.…