Court Opinion

ID: 9557707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:55:41.074592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:19.319429
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
SMITH, Justice.
Appellant, on rehearing, urges that the record fails to show apparent authority of its yard manager to bind appellant, relying upon Chamberlain v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 42 Idaho 604, 247 P. 12, and 2 Am. Jur., Agency, sec. 102, p. 83, to the effect that apparent authority is derived from a previous course of dealing, and that it is the conduct of the principal and not that of the agent that binds the principal.
The rules announced in those authorities are not applicable in the case at bar, since evidence of such a course of conduct is not the only way to show apparent authority. The theory of estoppel, since it is essentially similar to that of apparent authority, may be applied in establishing apparent authority. “Apparent authority, like estoppel is applied by the courts only to bind the principal, in which case the elements of apparent authority and estoppel, the facts upon which they are based, and the results achieved are the same.” 2 Am.Jur., Agency, sec. 104, p. 88. The original opinion is ground*324ed upon such theory, as are the several decisions of this Court cited and quoted from in the opinion.
We adhere to our original opinion.
TAYLOR, J., and BAKER, District Judge, concur.