Reed v. Linscott

The conversion of the car by the agent is not doubtful. He acted beyond his authority and wrongfully appropriated it to his own use. He had no right to transfer the title except upon a sale for the owner. A sale for himself being outside the agency, the defendant acquired no title or right of possession and was equally hable for a conversion unless he may avail himself of some principle of estoppel. The defence is made that the agent was held out by the owner with apparent authority to act as though the car was his own.

In Atto v. Saunders, 77 N. H. 527, 529, the definition of apparent…