- 1
&p .y/v/f-w-'^-'^' § 204.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. « the rule applies that where one of two innocent parties must suffer from the unauthorized act of an agent, the loss should ^ fall on him who selected the agent, and whom the agent repre- sents. It is certainly not the business of persons dealing with ^^gents to be on the watch lest the agents wrong their principals. . V -Thus, in a case where the plaintiff delivered certain moneys to > Mthe president, who was the general manager of the defendant ^corporation and had often borrowed money for it before, the s ^ court held that, in the absence of anything to show bad faith K i on the part of the plaintiff, the corporation could not defend by ^ showing that the moneys had not been used in the corporate business. 1 S ! 1 § 204. The maxim rnnia prcesumuntur rite esse acta applies sVresump- t° acts done on behalf of corporations ; and it can never be presumed that a corporate agent is acting wrongfully ; 2 or that an act which might have been a proper act to do on behalf of the corporation, was done under circumstances rendering it improper. 1 0* "i 'tions in X ■> ^ favor of the r > J > validity of ' * Hjthe acts of . corporate «0 agents.
- ^ : Kraft o. Freeman Printing Ass'n,
^5 s|^7 N. Y. 628; Ace. Thompson v. Lam- bert, 44 Iowa, 239. 2 " When the common seal of a cor- poration appears to be affixed to an ^instrument, and the signatures of the . v. ^ proper officers are proved, the courts » <$ -jture t° presume that the officers did t- not exceed their authority, and the
- seal itself is prima facie evidence that
^S it was affixed by proper authority." ^Angell and Ames on Corp., §224; Trustees of Canaudaigua Academy v. McKechnie, 90 N. Y. 618; Solomon's Lodge v. Montmollin, 58 Ga. 547; Can. v. Ga. L. & T. Co., 108 Ga. 757; . Wood b. Whelen, 93 111. 153; Ander- Vfc^son Transfer Co. o. Fuller, 174 111. T ^221; Ellison i Branstrater, 153 Ind. 146; Lovett v. Steam Saw Mill Assn., ^ Paige's Ch. 54; Flint v. Clinton Company, 12 N. H. 430; In re West
- > Jersey Traction Co., 59 N. J. Eq. 63;
^ Evans v. Lee, 11 Nev. 194; Chou- quette v. Barada, 28 Mo. 491; Mickey Sawyer, 475; Bliss v. Kaweali Co., 65 Cal. 502; Mills v. Boyle Mining Co., 132 Cal. 95; Wharf, etc., Co. v. Simpson, 77 Cal. 286; Parker v. Washoe Mfg. Co., 49 N. J. L. 465; see New England Iron Co. v. Gilbert, etc., R. R. Co., 91 N. Y. 153; Turnpike Co. v. Pass. Ry. Co., 194 Pa. St. 144. Compare Osborne v. Tunis, 25 N. J. L. 633; Bank of the United States v. Dandridge, 12 Wheat. 64, 70; Hilliard v. Gould, 34 N. H. 230, 239; Mass. r. Missouri, K. and T. Ry. Co., 83 N. Y. 223; C. B. & Q. R. Co. ». Lewis, 53 Iowa, 101; Atlantic and P. R. R. Co. o. St. Louis, 66 Mo. 228; Goodnow v. Oakley, 68 Iowa, 25 : Morse v. Beale, 68 Iowa, 463; Hall v. Bank, 145 Mo. 418; contra, Morri- son v. Wilder Gas Co., 91 Me. 492. 3 Chatauque County Bank v. Ris- ley, 19 N. Y. 369, 381; Yates v. Van De Bogert, 56 N. Y. 526; Olcott v. Tioga R. R. Co., 27 N. Y. 546; De Groff v. American Linen Thread Co., 21 N. Y. 124; Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. v. Perry, 3 Sandf. Ch. 339; I r x alJh^!n>^<*
