Dodge v. Williams

Citations

• 47 Pa. Super. 302
• 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 153

Syllabus

<p>Principal and agent — Evidence as to agency — General agency.</p> <p>1. A person dealing with an agent is bound to ascertain the extent of the agent’s authority, and this is particularly the case in dealing with one for the first time. The mere designation of general agent is not sufficiently specific. A general agency in a particular branch of the principal’s business implies no powers in connection with any other branch.</p> <p>2. It is always competent for a person dealing with an agent, to show that the acts of the agent in excess of his express authority are nevertheless within the scope of the authority which the principal has permitted him to assume, or which by a course of dealings, or otherwise, he has been held out by the principal, either to the public in general, or to the person dealing with him, as possessing.</p> <p>3. The extent of the agent’s powers depends upon the authority under which he acts. This may be shown by his instructions or his course of dealing. Prima facie, the powers of an agent are limited to those expressly granted, or arising by implication from the character of the same. The burden of proof lies on him who asserts that they have been enlarged by the acts of the principal.</p> <p>4. Evidence of the delegation of authority may be shown by the written instrument of the principal, or parol testimony showing a regular course of dealing with the knowledge of the principal, or that an agent of limited powers has been in the habit of managing the business committed to his care in a manner involving the enlargement of his powers, with the knowledge and acquiescence of his principal. Authority cannot be proved by the declarations of an alleged agent, nor by his acts done without the knowledge or authority of the principal.</p> <p>5. In an action on a contract in writing signed in the defendant’s trade name by a person describing himself as vice president and general manager, although no corporation existed, the evidence is sufficient to