Clearly, the district court had jurisdiction over this cause of action. Defendant next argues the district court erred in finding that plaintiff did not have actual knowledge of defendant's principal. As we understand, the Echo published a notice of the hearing set for plaintiff's motion to quash defendant's subpoena on some date prior to the date that defendant sent plaintiff Ms. Rose's authorization to release her medical records. The Echo, however, is not in the record on appeal. Where the other party has actual knowledge of the agency and the identity of the principal, the agent will be relieved from liability, whether he makes the disclosure or the other party acquires the knowledge from some other source.
Actual notice includes both express and implied notice.
200 Kan. at 587. Defendant does not argue that the district court erred in finding that defendant did not disclose the identity of its principal. Plaintiff argues this is a question of fact, limiting this court's review to whether substantial competent evidence supports the district court's findings. Furthermore, there are no stipulations in the record on appeal, and the facts of the case were not limited to documentary evidence. To the contrary, the district court held a full evidentiary trial before making its findings.