Legal Opinion

Holm v. Bennett

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided February 6, 1895No. 6087PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error from tbe district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Hall, J. cited: Rogers «. Mnphie Hardware Co., 24 Neb., 653; Mwell v. Chambeiimf. 31 N. Y., 611; Aultmanv. Reams, 9 Neb., 487. A full knowledge of all material facts is aii indispensable-condition of ratification; otherwise the receipt and retention of the benefits of an unauthorized act is no ratification of it.

Read the full summary

Error from tbe district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Hall, J. cited: Rogers «. Mnphie Hardware Co., 24 Neb., 653; Mwell v. Chambeiimf. 31 N. Y., 611; Aultmanv. Reams, 9 Neb., 487. A full knowledge of all material facts is aii indispensable-condition of ratification; otherwise the receipt and retention of the benefits of an unauthorized act is no ratification of it. (Meehem, Agency, secs. 129, 148, and cases cited; Smith v. Tracy, 36 N. Y., 79; Bell v. Cunningham, 3 Pet. [U. S.], 69; Schulz v. Jordan, 32 Fed. Rep., 55 ; Bohart v„ Oberne, 36 Kan., 291; Bryant v. Moore, 26 Me.,…

1Opinion of the Court

Ragan, C.

Charles E. Bennett in the year 1891 owned a house and lot in the city of Lincoln. In that year he employed Holm & Reed, real estate agents of said city, to lease said property for him, and at the same time authorized them to sell it. In June, 1891, they leased the property to Chancellor Canfield, of the State University, at $40 per month, who-paid Holm & Reed the rent for said property for the months of August and September of said year. On the-24th of July, 1891, Holm & Reed negotiated a sale of said real estate. They notified Mr. Bennett that they could sell the pro] erty for him…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Henry & Coatsworth Co. v. FisherdickNebraska Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Craighead v. . PetersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1878

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Oxford Lake Line v. First National BankSupreme Court of Florida · 1898
  2. O'Shea v. RiceNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
  3. German American State Bank v. Mutual Benefit, Health & Accident Ass'nNebraska Supreme Court · 1921

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API