Cited by

Co., (“[O]nly t hose who have acted in reliance on apparent authority are entitled to recover where the agent possessed no actual authority, express or implied.”).

Eberlein v. Stockyards Mortgage & Trust Co. 164 Minn. 323 , , relied upon and cited by plaintiffs, is distinguishable upon its facts.

Sales Agency, Inc. *128 201 Minn. 266 , ; Eberlein v. Stockyards M. & T. Co. 164 Minn. 323 , ; St.

See Eberlein v. Stockyards M. & T. Co. 164 Minn. 323 , ; Karon v. Kellogg, 195 Minn. 134 , .

On this proposition defendant cites and relies upon Eberlein v. Stockyards M. & T. Co. 164 Minn. 323 , , Avhere it Avas held that an officer of a trust company did not have implied authority to annex to the sale of a bond a provision of repurchase.

Eberlein v. Stockyards M. & T. Co. 164 Minn. 323 , ; Bloomingdale v. Cush-man, 134 Minn. 445 , .

The decision in Eberlein v. Stockyards M. & T. Co. 164 Minn. 323 , , was *365 in an action on an express contract.

Co. 136 Minn. 138 , ; Longman v. Anderson, 160 Minn 15, ; Eberlein v. Stockyards M. & T. Co. 164 Minn. 323 , ; 22 C. J. p. 367, § 440, and notes 6, 7, and 8, p. 375, as to admissions of agents and employes.

The case of Eberlein v. Stockyards M. & T. Co. 164 Minn. 323 , , was an action on contract and does not overrule the Picha case.

Co. 164 Minn. 323 , , opposed to the .result reached.

Eberlein v. Stockyards M. & T. Co. 164 Minn. 323 , *252 ; Craughwell v. Mousam River Trust Co. 113 Me. 531 , 95 Atl.