Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Minnesota Supreme Court, 1895

Newport v. Smith

Newport v. Smith
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 7, 1895 · Mitchell
61 Minn. 277; 63 N.W. 734; 1895 Minn. LEXIS 355 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Warner, Sichardson c& Lawrence and 8. T. éb Wm. Harrison, for appellants., J. L. WasMwrn and L. JE. Judson, Jr., for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1929, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Newport v. Smith

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MITCHELL, J.2

This action was brought to recover damages on the ground that defendant, assuming to be the agent of his mother, made a contract in her n'ame which was not binding upon •her by reason of the fact that it was unauthorized by her.

The ground and form of the professed agent’s liability in such cases has been the subject of discussion, but all the authorities are agreed that he is liable in damages to the person dealing with him upon the faith that he possessed the authority assumed. Sheffield v. Ladue, 16 Minn. 346, (388); Jefts v. York, 10 Cush. 392; Baltzen v. Nicolay, 53 N. Y. 467; Mechem, Ag. §§ 541-545. But in whatever phase the question- has arisen, or whatever diverse views the *279courts may entertain as to the precise ground of the liability or form of the remedy, all the authorities are agreed that, to give a party a legal remedy against the professed agent, he must have been ignorant of the want of authority, and have acted upon the faith of the representations, express or implied, that the professed agent had the authority assumed. Hence the law is that when the professed agent, acting in good faith, fully discloses to the other party, at the time, all the facts and circumstances touching the authority under which he assumes to act, so that the other party, from such information or otherwise, is fully informed as to the existence and extent of his authority, he cannot be held liable. Mechem, Ag. § 546, and cases cited.

Such, in substance, the trial court, by its fifth finding, has found to be the fact in this case; and that finding is, in our opinion, amply sustained by the evidence; and we find no errors of law occurring during the trial, by way of admitting or excluding evidence, that could in any way have affected this finding. This is decisive of the case, and it therefore becomes immaterial what, if any, errors were .committed bearing upon or affecting the sixth and seventh findings of fact which relate to other and independent grounds, upon which also the court held that defendant was not liable.

Order affirmed.

Buck, J., absent, took no part.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.