195.] THE LAW OP PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. officer for a space of time has performed certain acts on behalf of the corporation, with its acquiescence or with the acqui- escence of his superior officers, who themselves have authority to do the acts in question, persons dealing with him will be protected in acting on the honest assumption that those acts and acts of a like nature done for a similar purpose are within the scope of his authority. 1 § 194. It is of importance to determine what limitations on the authority of corporate agents will protect a cor- poration from responsibility for their unauthorized acts. Limitations having this effect may be divided into three classes : first, those with knowledge of which persons transacting business with corporate agents are affected as a matter of law ; secondly, those actually brought to the knowledge of such persons; and, thirdly, those a reasonable man would infer from the character of the agent's employment. § 195. It is undisputed that persons dealing with a corpora- Effective limitations on the au- thority of corporate agents. Class I. tion are charged with notice of the limitations on the authority of its agents contained in its charter or enabling act and articles of association. 2 And a person dealing Boston R. R. Co., 150 Mass. 207. (There was, also, a by-law forbid- ding it.) 1 Mining Co. v. Anglo-Californian Bank, 104 U. S. 192 ; Creswell v. Lanalian, 101 U. S. 347 ; Merchants 1 Bank v. State Bank, 10 Wall. G04 ; Beers v. Phoenix Glass Co., 14 Barb. 358; Phillips v. Campbell, 43 N. Y. 271 ; Talladega Insurance Co. v. Pea- cock, 67 Ala. 253 ; Lester v. Webb, 1 Allen, 34 ; McDonald v. Cbisbolm, 131 111. 273 ; see Allen v. Citizens 1 Steam Navigation Company, 22 Cal. 28; Lee v. Pittsburgh Coal, etc., Co., 56 How. Pr. (N. Y. ) 373; S. C, affd 75 N. Y. 601; Woman's Chris- tian Temperance Union v. Taylor, 8 Col. 75; and, generally, the princi- ples of estoppel apply to corpora- tions. Bank r. Flour Co., 41 O. St. 552 ; New York & N. E. R. R. Co. v. 166 New York, etc., R. R. Co., 52 Conn. 274, 282 ; Heine v. Pollak, 118 Ala. 017; Magowan v. Groveung, 14 S. Dak. 543. Compare Elliott Bank v. Western, etc., R. R., 2 Lea (Tenn.), 676. 2 Pearce v. Madison, etc., R. R. Co., 21 How. 441, 443 ; Davis v. Old Colony R. R. Co., 131 Mass. 258; Beatty v. Marine Ins. Co., 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 109; Dabney v. Stevens, 2 Sweeney, 415, affd 46 N. Y. 681; Adriance v. Roome, 52 Barb. 399; Silliman v. Fredericksburg, etc., R. Co., 27 Gratt. (Va.) 119 ; Merritt v. Lambert, 1 Hoffman's Ch. (N. Y.) 165 ; Root v. Wallace, 4 McLean, 8; Salem Bank ». Gloucester Bank, 17 Mass. 1, 29 ; Fitzhngh ». Land Co., 81 Tex. 306 ; see Zabriskie v. Cleve- land, etc., R. R. Co., 23 How. 381, 398.
