Methuen Co. v. Hayes
33 Me. 169
Opinion
— The agency of Davis was lawfully proved. There was no evidence that it was a limited agency. In the absence of such evidence, the agency is to be considered a general one. Such an agency includes the authority to commence and prosecute suits.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Methuen Co. v. Hayes, 33 Me. 169 (Me. 1851).
33 Me. 169 (Methuen Co. v. Hayes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Roane v. Union Pac. Life Ins.
135 P. 892 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1913)
Aerne v. Gostlow
118 P. 277 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1911)
Leo Austrian & Co. v. Springer
54 N.W. 50 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1892)