Cited by

Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , ; Sinclair v. Investors Syndicate, supra.

Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , ; Sinclair v. Investors Syndicate, supra.

Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , .

Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , ; Dispatch Printing Co. v. Nat.

Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , ; Dispatch Printing Co. v. Nat.

Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , ; Dispatch Printing Co. v. Nat.

Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , ; Sinclair v. Investors Syndicate, 125 Minn. 311 , ; Gross Iron Ore Co. v. Paulle, 132 Minn. 160 , ; Moorhead v. Minneapolis Seed Co. 139 Minn. 11 , , L. R. A. 1918C, 391, Ann. Cas.

Barteau v. Merriam, 52 Minn. 222 , .

Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , ; Dispatch Printing Co. v. Nat.

Apparent authority cannot be claimed, under the decisions of Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , , and the case against the same defendant where the Dispatch Printing Co. was plaintiff in 109 Minn. 440 , , 50 L.R.A.

74; Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , .

Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , .

* Such a manner of conducting the business in the office might have been proved as would have justified the jury in finding that the officers must have known of the custom of the bookkeeper and casíiier in regard to checks; and had that been found, and that it was acquiesced in by plaintiff, the intention to vest authority might have been implied.” Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , .

The rule governing transactions with an agent, acting without authority in fact, but whom his principal has clothed with apparent authority, rests upon the doctrine of estoppel, and is stated in Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 52 *315 Minn. 221 , , as followa: “Where one has reasonably and in good faith been led to believe from the appearance of authority which a principal permits his agent to have, and because of such belief has in good faith dealt with the agent, the principal

In Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , , it.

324; Dispatch Printing Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 109 Minn. 440 , ; Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , .

Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , ; Connell v. McLoughlin, 28 Ore.

Plaintiff bases its right of action upon the claim that defendant held' Farnham out as his general manager, and thus clothed him with apparent or implied authority to order the goods in question, and the' rule laid down in Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , ; Best v. Krey, 83 Minn. 32 , , is invoked.

Thus in Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , , it was held that on the question of the authority of an agent, the party dealing with him might prove the course and manner of business as conducted between the principal and agent, from which actual authority to do particular acts would be implied, though the party dealing with the agent did not kno

This ruling was justified by the case of Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , , where it is held: “On the question of authority of an agent of a business concern, the party dealing with him may prove the course and manner of business in that concern as connected with such agent, from which actual authority may be implied, though the party did not know of such course and manner o

Co., 51 Minn. 531 , ; Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , ; Delude v. St.

If so, it was defendant’s money, and not plaintiff’s. Counsel cite Columbia v. National, 52 Minn. 224 , , on the proposition that, if Kelley had actual authority, as plaintiff’s agent, to receive payment of the mortgage, it was immaterial whether defendant did or did not know it.

Columbia v. National, 52 Minn. 224 , .

Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , .

On the question of authority of an agent of a business concern, and how a principal may be bound by the appearance of authority which his negligent conduct of his business permits his agent to have, see Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 52 Minn. 224 , .