Court Opinion

ID: 9831864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:26:10.675271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:38.698799
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellee’s pleading, it is argued, sufficiently raises apparent authority; but if not, that the case should merely be remanded for another trial, so that such may be affirmatively pleaded. The testi*987mony of Col. DeBogory, given the most favorable construction, lacks factual essentials of agency by estoppel; for the record reflects no knowledge or notice by Foote of any acts or conduct on part of said unidentified employe (suggestive of agency), either before or after the agreement relied upon. “The powers which the agent pretends to have, or assumes to exercise, are inoperative as a basis for ostensible authority when the principal is not affected by knowledge of them and does not validate them by acquiescence or assent; and no mere combination of circumstances which may, without the principal’s participation, mislead third persons, however reasonably, into a false inference of authority affords a sufficient predicate for apparent authority. That a third person is misled thereby, or reposes a good faith belief therein, is not enough tb establish an ostensible power to act.” 2 C.J.S., Agency, 1215, § 96. See, also, Continental Oil Co. v. Baxter, supra, and Great American Casualty Co. v. Eichelberger, Tex.Civ.App., 37 S.W.2d 1050, writ refused. We consider appellee’s case as having been fully developed and must adhere to disposition thereof in original opinion.
The motion for rehearing is accordingly overruled.