Methuen Co. v. Hayes
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit, tried before Shepley, C. J. The plaintiffs were an incorporated company. The authority to institute the suit was in question. One Davis, a witness for the plaintiffs, testified, that he was their agent. The Judge instructed the jury, that if Davis was the agent of the plaintiffs and had directed the suit, it could not be defeated for want of authority to commence and to prosecute it.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, tried before Shepley, C. J. The plaintiffs were an incorporated company. The authority to institute the suit was in question. One Davis, a witness for the plaintiffs, testified, that he was their agent. The Judge instructed the jury, that if Davis was the agent of the plaintiffs and had directed the suit, it could not be defeated for want of authority to commence and to prosecute it. The defendant excepted. 1. It is only by a vote, that a corporation can confer authority. Such vote must appear of record in their books. 24 Maine, 171. It was not competent for the agency of Davis to…
1Opinion of the Court
Howard, J., orally.
— The agency of Davis was lawfully proved. There was no evidence that it was a limited agency. In the absence of such evidence, the agency is to be considered a general one. Such an agency includes the authority to commence and prosecute suits.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Leo Austrian & Co. v. SpringerMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Aerne v. GostlowOregon Supreme Court · 1911
- Roane v. Union Pac. Life Ins.Oregon Supreme Court · 1913