Fraser v. Home Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Citations

• 91 Wash. 253
• 157 P. 692
• 1916 Wash. LEXIS 1049

Syllabus

<p>Corporations — Agency—“Underwriters.” An “underwriter” of the stock and bonds of a telephone company is not an agent of the company, as a matter of law; as underwriting in this sense is a purchase together with a guaranty of a sale of the bonds, by one who sells in his own interest only.</p> <p>Same — Agency by Estoppel — Underwriters. A telephone company is not estopped to deny the agency of an underwriter of its stocks and bonds from the fact that it held him out, and permitted him to advertise, as an underwriter to one who did not know what that term meant and therefore could not have acted upon it as a representation that he was an agent.</p> <p>Same — Agency —“Underwriters”— Evidence — Suebtciency. A telephone company cannot be held for the acts of an underwriter of its stocks and bonds, as its agent, in failing to deliver stock sold and converting the money paid therefor,' where no representation was made that he was an agent of or ever represented the corporation, and it appears that he had merely underwritten certain of its stock and bonds, subscribed for and issued to another telephone company in payment for the construction of the telephone plant, in which the issuing company had no further interest; and it is immaterial that he used a prospectus of the company to aid in his sales, since there was no evidence of agency; especially where no demand was made on the company until three years after the purchase.</p> <p>Trial — Waiver oe Error — Nonsuit. Error in denying a nonsuit is not cured by waiver of defendant in going into the defense without offering evidence to strengthen plaintiff’s case.</p>