AGENCY-IMPLIED AGENCY-EFFECT OF PRINCIPAL'S ACQUIESCENCE IN AGENT'S COLLECTION WHERE SUCH AUTHORITY IS DENIED

Authors

Shubrick T. Kothe S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Defendant's predecessor gave a promissory note in payment for goods delivered to him by a local merchant, who advertised himself as plaintiff's dealer. The note was payable at plaintiff's home office, and the conditional sale contract also provided that the payments were to be made at that office. The first two payments were made to the dealer, and subsequently accepted by the plaintiff. The third and final payment was also made to the dealer but not received by the company. Suit was instituted for the amount of the final payment. Judgment rendered on demurrer for the plaintiff. Held, the court below should have submitted to the jury the question whether there was an implied agency. Campbell v. John Deere Plow Co., (Okla. 1946) 172 P. (2d) 319.

Recommended Citation

Shubrick T. Kothe S.Ed., AGENCY-IMPLIED AGENCY-EFFECT OF PRINCIPAL'S ACQUIESCENCE IN AGENT'S COLLECTION WHERE SUCH AUTHORITY IS DENIED, 45 Mich. L. Rev. 624 (1947).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol45/iss5/7