Rushing v. Saboe

Appellant’s defense is based upon her claim that her agent Keller was never authorized by her to agree to pay the note and, therefore, she was not liable. Her contention is there is no evidence tending to prove that her agent Keller was authorized to assume or guarantee the payment of the note signed by her co-defendants. In her supplemental brief she uses this language:

“We do not deny that under the verdict in this case, it is an established fact that Mrs. Loring assumed and agreed to pay the debt due from Mandigo to Mrs. Bushing, if it be determined that her agent Keller had the authority…