Court Opinion

ID: 9553394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:28:52.632701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:58.720564
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(Dissenting)
I dissent. I can see no proper conclusion other than that arrived at by the trial court: that in the transaction wherein this stock, even though in bearer form, was dealt with to pay the debt of the defendant Prince-Covey Company, that company could not have been an innocent purchaser because it was charged with the knowledge of its employee-agent, England. Though my colleagues are of the opinion that the matter should be remanded for trial, it is this court’s duty to comment on matters of law that may become pertinent therein.1 Where a principal (Prince-Covey) has invested its agent with actual or ostensible *895authority to deal for it, which the latter does, and from which the principal derives some benefit, the corporation cannot take advantage of the favorable aspects of the agent’s conduct and disclaim responsibility for the other aspects of his conduct; and it is charged with whatever knowledge he acquires in connection with such business.2

. Foster v. Blake Heights Corp., Utah, 530 P.2d 815; and see Annot. 4 A.L.R.3d 224 12 C.J.S. Brokers § 137, p. 347.

. See Rule 76(a), U.R.C.P.; LeGrand Johnson Corp. v. Peterson, 18 Utah 2d 260, 420 P.2d 615.