Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. Lehmann

While the case was tried on the theory of ostensible agency, plaintiff’s actual proof was that its employees having to do with the matter believed that defendant and Wayne were partners as W. R. Lehmann & Son. We may assume for present purposes that the evidence warranted the jury in finding that there was reasonable ground for that belief, and that defendant was responsible for the misleading appearances. Nevertheless, plaintiff failed to offer any evidence that it changed its position to its detriment in reliance on that belief, and hence defendant’s motion for a nonsuit should have been…