Brown v. Bankers & Brokers' Telegraph Co.
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas. The cause was argued before Babtol, C. J., NelsoN, Miller and Alvey, J. 1 The facts of the case show actual notice to the appellee, because notice to Wain wright, who had actual knowledge of •the whole transaction, was notice to his principal. Wainwright was the agent to make the contracts and payments, and was therefore the agent to receive notice. Story on Agency, sec. 140; Boyd, et al. vs. Ches. & O. Can.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas. The cause was argued before Babtol, C. J., NelsoN, Miller and Alvey, J. 1 The facts of the case show actual notice to the appellee, because notice to Wain wright, who had actual knowledge of •the whole transaction, was notice to his principal. Wainwright was the agent to make the contracts and payments, and was therefore the agent to receive notice. Story on Agency, sec. 140; Boyd, et al. vs. Ches. & O. Can. Co., 17 Jfd.,'195. . The appellant did not suspect Wain wright of fraud or misrepresentation, and had no right to do so, and had nothing whatever to…
1Opinion of the CourtNelsoN, J.
This is an action of indebitatus assumpsit for work and labor done and materials furnished. The material facts are, that the plaintiff was employed by H. H. Wainwright, the superintendent and engineer of the defendant, having authority to make such contract, to supply materials, and do the carpenter’s work in and about the offices of the defendant. Whilst the work was in progress, the agent of the plaintiff called on Wainwright for an advance of money on account; Wainwright handed said agent his check on the Banking house of Thomas & Co., in the city of Baltimore, for $200, and took from said…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Schepflin v. DessarMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Jackson v. Mutual Benefit Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900