PRINCIPAL AND AGENT - APPLICATION OF "SOLE ACTOR" DOCTRINE

Authors

Michigan Law Review, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

Defendant executed a note for $12,500 to the Taylor National Bank, due six months after date, at the request of one Morton, president and cashier of the bank. Defendant was told by Morton that the instrument was purely an accommodation note, that he would never have to pay anything on account of it and that before using it Morton would see that good and sufficient collateral was placed with it. In defense to an action on the note by the receiver of the bank, the defendant charged that the bank had knowledge of the conditions and purposes for which the note was signed because of "the sole actor" doctrine and consequently the receiver was estopped to bring this action. Held, that since the "sole actor" doctrine does not apply and the bank is not charged with the knowledge of its agent, Morton, the receiver has a good cause of action on the note. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Pendleton, (D. C. Ky. 1939) 29 F. Supp. 779.

Recommended Citation

Michigan Law Review, PRINCIPAL AND AGENT - APPLICATION OF "SOLE ACTOR" DOCTRINE, 38 Mich. L. Rev. 1339 (1940).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol38/iss8/24