Kimbark v. Timken Roller Bearing Co.

4 Ohio Law. Abs. 381
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Kimbark v. Timken Roller Bearing Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 115 Ohio St. 161
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1926·No. No. 19467·Published

Opinion

ROBINSON J.

1. Where the agent of A., whether acting under a limited or general authority, obtained from B, the transfer of her stock to A., and possession of her stock certificates, which A. received and retained: Held: Evidence of what was said in the presence of B. and the agent of A. at the time of such transfer is competent in a suit for conversion of the stock, irrespective of the extent of the authority of the agent.

2. Where a principal obtains a transfer of stock and possession of the stock certificate through an unauthorized agreement of his agent, the responsibility of ratification or rescission of such agreement devolves upon him upon learning of such unauthorized agreement.

Judgment reversed.

Marshall, C. J., Matthias, Allen and Kinkade, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Kimbark v. Timken Roller Bearing Co., 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 381 (Ohio 1926).

4 Ohio Law. Abs. 381 (Kimbark v. Timken Roller Bearing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.