Pennsylvania Taximeter Cab Co. v. Cressey

Citations

• 191 F. 337
• 112 C.C.A. 81
• 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4948

Syllabus

<p>■Corporations (§§ 406, 426*) — Powers ok Agent — Implied Authority.</p> <p>The fact that an‘assistant secretary of defendant, a taxicab company, acting under authority from the company, employed plaintiff as an insurance broker to place insurance on its cars from time to time as new cars were purchased or existing insurance expired, each transaction being separate, had no tendency to give such assistant secretary implied authority to bind defendant by a contract to give plaintiff all of its insurance business for a term of three years, or any other term, nor was such contract ratified by defendant by accepting policies procured by plaintiff after it ,/as made where the directors had no knowledge of it at the time and repudiated it at once when it became known to them.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1611-1614, 1590, 1702-1704, 1707, 1708, 1710-1716; Dec. Dig. §§ 406, 426.* J</p>