Horseshoe Mining Co. v. Miners' Ore Sampling Co.

Citations

• 147 F. 517
• 77 C.C.A. 213
• 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4271

Syllabus

<p>1. Attorney and Client — When Authority Not Presumed from its Assumption.</p> <p>The assumption by an attorney at law, even if generally retained, of authority to act for Ms principal outside of the due and orderly prosecution, defense, or conduct of litigation or proceedings in courts does not create any presumption of actual authority so to act. but, as in the case of other agents, his acts must he shown to be within the scope of his authority, else they will not bind his principal.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 5, Cent. Dig. Attorney and Client, § 95.]</p> <p>2. Evidence — Attorney and Client — Admissions by Attorney — Evidence Against Principal.</p> <p>The statements and admissions of an attorney at law in respect of his principal’s business are inadmissible against his principal unless it is specially shown that they were authorized or that they were made in tlie due and orderly conduct of a case for the distinct purpose of dispensing with formal proof of the facts to which they relate.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 20, Cent. Dig. Evidence, §§ 945-949.]</p> <p>3. Corporations — Contract’—Execution—Evidence.</p> <p>In the trial of an issue as to whether a stated contract was made with A. Company or with B. Company, the persons who negotiated the contract on behalf of one or the other of them being officers or agents of both, evidence that A. Company was a large stockholder of I>. Company is inadmissible.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>