Woodworth v. School District No. 2

Citations

• 92 Wash. 456
• 159 P. 757
• 1916 Wash. LEXIS 796

Syllabus

<p>Principal and Agent — Powers of Agent — Sales — Collection— Apparent Authority — Evidence—Sufficiency. The jury is warranted in finding that the agent of a manufacturer of school clocks had apparent authority to receive school warrants in pay for clocks sold and installed by him, where it appears that he was authorized to use letter heads describing himself as “Pacific Coast Representative,” it was his duty to make sales and installations, to pay for material and labor, and charge the same in his expense account, which he did without any communication from the company except acknowledgment of the order, especially where the company acknowledged the agent’s authority to negotiate terms of settlement.</p> <p>Same — Proof of Agency — Declarations of Agent — Admissibility. The authority of a selling agent to collect for clocks sold to a school district may not be shown by declarations of the agent not known to or acquiesced in by the principal, even though an agency for one purpose is admitted.</p> <p>Same — Proof of Agency — Declaration of Third Person. Neither can such authority be shown on the declarations of a third person temporarily placed in charge of the office and authorized to make the collection, in the absence of proof of his authority to bind the company' by his declarations.</p> <p>Same- — Authority of Agent — Power to Collect ■— Actions — Instructions.- In an action for the price of school clocks, sold and installed by an agent, but shipped direct to .the purchaser by the company, it is reversible error to instruct the jury that an agent in exclusive possession for the purpose of selling has apparent authority tó receive payment; since the agent did not have possession at the time of the sale. ■ • .■</p> <p>Same — -Authority of Agent — Ratification — “Estoppel”—Delay. Delay in bringing action, after an agent’s embezzlement of school warrants given in payment for clocks sold, does not estop the company from denying the agent’s authority to receive the w