Court Opinion

ID: 9670583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:22:51.214575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:05.330306
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
To the extent that the opinion of the court implies that the plaintiff may recover against the bank on a theory of contract or promissory estoppel based upon a conversation with an unidentified female employee in the bookkeeping department of the bank, I respectfully dissent.
“The usual assistants in a bank — tellers, bookkeepers, and others — act under special or express authority, and their acts bind their bank only when they are within the liné of authority.” 9 C.J.S. Banks and Banking § 211 at 461 (1938). There is no allegation of special or express authority in the petition, and no facts are alleged which would permit a finding of presumed authority to bind the bank.
I do not agree that the petition filed in this case *587clearly stated a cause of action which, if proved, would entitle the plaintiff to relief.
Hastings, J., joins in this dissent.