Bernard v. Madsen
North Dakota Supreme Court
1DissentNuessue, J.
But two questions are presented in this case: (1) Bid the Ruso bank have actual authority to act as plaintiff’s 'agent in collecting the principal obligation, and, (2) did the plaintiff" so conduct herself as to reasonably warrant the defendant, Sorenson, in believing that the Ruso bank had such authority ? 'That is, Avas there actual or ostensible agency in the bank? The defendant contends that there Avas. The plaintiff asserts the contrary. The burden is upon the defendant to establish his contention. When he dealt with an agent he did so at his peril. It is undisputed that the note and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hollinshead v. John Stuart & Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1898
- Corey v. HunterNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
- Martinson v. KershnerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
- Stolzman v. WymanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1898
- Trubel v. SandbergNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.