Court Opinion

ID: 9827644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:43:49.432086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:34.075112
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants contend that we are inconsistent in holding that B. R. Bolding did not acquire the vendor’s lien as against the trust company by her purchase of the four vendor’s lien notes, but that she did thereby acquire a vendor’s lien as against the partnership of J. P. and W. H. Bolding.
[5, 6] Our view of this matter is this: B. R. Bolding supposed that she was purchasing these notes from the trust company; but as in said transaction she acted through W. H. Bolding, who knew that the trust company did not propose to sell said notes, but was demanding their payment, she is bound by the knowledge of her agent, and as against the rights of the trust company she acquired nothing. As W. H. Bolding in said transaction was also representing the partnership of which he was a member, and by the pretended sale of said notes received the money of B. R. Bolding, and applied the same to the benefits of the partnership, and as B. R. Bolding had no actual knowledge that the trust company was not willing to sell said notes, as between her and the partnership, W. H. Bolding was the agent of the partnership, and the partnership is bound by his representations that B. R. Bolding, by the payment of the principal and interest of said notes, was acquiring title to the same, and consequently the vendor’s lien for their security. We think that J. P. Bolding is es-topped from repudiating the transaction consummated by his partner for the payment of a partnership debt. .
The motion for a rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.