Manny v. Spokane State Bank

Citations

• 78 Wash. 230
• 138 P. 682
• 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1003

Syllabus

<p>Estoppel — In Pais — Representations. A mortgagee of property, to whom fire insurance policies were payable as its interest might appear, is estopped to assert that it had transferred the note and had no insurable interest at the timé of the fire, in order to escape liability to a contractor for repairing the building, where it appears that it represented to the contractor, both before and during the time he was working, that it owned the mortgage, and it made sworn proof of its loss and asserted such ownership, and agreed to pay the insurance money to the contractor, although it failed to collect the insurance because it transferred the note without notice to the insurance company.</p> <p>Banks and Banking — Authority of Officers — Contracts. The officers of a bank, holding a mortgage upon insured property, act within the apparent scope of their authority in contracting for repairs of the building after a fire, and agreeing to pay the insurance money to the contractor.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Objections Not Ubsed Below. • Where the authority of officers of a bank to make a contract was not questioned in the lower court, it cannot be urged on appeal, in support of a motion for a nonsuit by the bank, that the contract was outside the scope of their authority.</p> <p>Chadwick, J., dissents.</p>