Fitch v. Engelhardt
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Ward County,. Leighton, J. The mortgage company was not an ostensible agent. An agent has only such authority as the principal actually or ostensibly confers upon him. Code 1913, § 6324; Mechera, Agency, § 744, p. 528. Ostensible agency is one by estoppel, and should be restricted to-cases where the agency is not real, but apparent.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Ward County,. Leighton, J. The mortgage company was not an ostensible agent. An agent has only such authority as the principal actually or ostensibly confers upon him. Code 1913, § 6324; Mechera, Agency, § 744, p. 528. Ostensible agency is one by estoppel, and should be restricted to-cases where the agency is not real, but apparent. Harris v. San Diego Fluen Co. 87 Cal. 526, 25 Pac. 758; Hollinshead v. John Stuart & Co. (Hollinshead v. Globe Invest. Co.) 8 N. D. 35, 42 L.E.A. 659, 77 N. W. 89; Mechem, Agency, §§ 934 — 945; Stolzman v. Wyman, 8…
1Opinion of the CourtGoss, J.
Plaintiff, tbe owner of land mortgaged to tbe American Mortgage & Investment Company of St. Paul, Minnesota, and assigned by it before maturity to tbe defendant, Engelbardt, upon maturity of tbe mortgage in May, 1912, sent tbe principal, $800, and tbe interest, $48, to tbe mortgage company at St. Paul, Minnesota, at which place tbe mortgage and notes stipulated for payment. Very soon thereafter tbe company failed. Tbe money paid it as payment of this mortgage and last instalment of interest and owned by tbe defendant, its assignee, was never paid to him, and upon bis refusal to satisfy tbe…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Martinson v. KershnerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
- Trubel v. SandbergNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bernard v. MadsenNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1925
- Bernard v. MadsenNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1925