Court Opinion

ID: 9589475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:45:00.321402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:08.149729
License: Public Domain

Felton, J.
dissenting. I think that the court erred in charging in effect that, if the jury found that W. B. Getchell, a structural engineer, was made the general agent of the defendant for the removal of the spillway, the plaintiff could deal with him as a general agent for the diverting of the stream unless he was notified that the agency had been revoked. These were entirely separate and distinct projects as to both of which combined no general agency was proved, and the jury were not authorized to find that, if Getchell was a general agent as to the first project, the plaintiff could deal with him as such as to the second project unless the plaintiff was notified that the general agency had been revoked. The law charged would only be applicable where there was proof that there was a general agency as to both projects combined. I express no opinion on the general grounds.