Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Brutinel v. Nygren, 154 P. 1042.

51 citing documents.

Goodman v. Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. 270 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Goodman v. Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. 270 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
¶13 Goodman contends the principal‟s intent is controlling in determining whether an agency relationship was created, 154 P. 1042, 1044 (1916), and insists the evidence established that such a relationship existed here.
Anchor Equities, Ltd. v. Joya 773 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Anchor Equities, Ltd. v. Joya 773 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
154 P. 1042 (1916), where the court stated as follows: So far as the authority of an agent involves the rights of innocent third persons, who have relied upon the character bestowed upon the agent, the principal is bound equally by the authority which he actually gives and by that which by his own act he appears to
Maganas v. Northroup 663 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1983
Maganas v. Northroup 663 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1983
As we stated *577 , 154 P. 1042 (1916): “So far as the authority of an agent involves the rights of innocent third persons, who have relied upon the character bestowed upon the agent, the principal is bound equally by the authority which he actually gives and by that which by his own act he appears to give, and this is true, whether we
Cote v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. 626 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Cote v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. 626 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Hudlow v. AMERICAN ESTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 526 P.2d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Hudlow v. AMERICAN ESTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 526 P.2d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
3 Am.Jur.2d § 78, , 154 P. 1042 (1916).
Phoenix Western Holding Corporation v. Gleeson 500 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Phoenix Western Holding Corporation v. Gleeson 500 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
154 P. 1042 (1916), in commenting upon the burden of proof of a litigant who attempts to bind a principal by the acts of his agent noted that such a person is bound to ascertain: “ * * * not on]y the fact of agency, but the nature and extent of the authority, and in case either is controverted the burden of proof is
Holsclaw v. Catalina Savings & Loan Association 476 P.2d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Holsclaw v. Catalina Savings & Loan Association 476 P.2d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
In the same vein is the following black letter rule set forth in Restatement, Second, Agency, § 43(2): “Acquiescence by the principal in a series of acts by the agent indicates authorization to perform similar acts in the future.” To similar general effect, , 154 P. 1042, 1045 (1916).
Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Glens Falls Insurance 470 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Glens Falls Insurance 470 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Land-Air, Inc. v. Parker 435 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1967
OS Stapley Company v. Logan 431 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
OS Stapley Company v. Logan 431 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
154 P. 1042 , L.R.A.1918 F, 713 (1916).
Gibralter Escrow Co. v. Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc. 421 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Gibralter Escrow Co. v. Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc. 421 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Gibraltar cites as authority for its position that Smith’s , 154 P. 1042 (1960)
BANK OF AMERICA, ETC. v. Barnett 348 P.2d 296 Ariz. 1960
BANK OF AMERICA, ETC. v. Barnett 348 P.2d 296 Ariz. 1960
City of Phoenix v. Linsenmeyer 346 P.2d 140 Ariz. 1959
City of Phoenix v. Linsenmeyer 346 P.2d 140 Ariz. 1959
It is argued that in order to bind a principal, a person dealing with the principal’s agent is bound to ascertain not only the fact of agency, but the nature and extent of the agent’s authority, and “in case either is controverted the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish the fact of authority and its extent.” , 154 P. 1042 , L.R.A.1918F, 713.
Christensen v. Pryor 255 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1953
Christensen v. Pryor 255 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1953
Defendants contend that the rule is otherwise in Arizona, citing Brutinel v. Nygren, 1916, , 154 P. 1042 , L.R.A.1918 F, 713; Light v. Chandler Improvement Co., 1928, , 261 P. 969 , 57 A.L.R.
Canyon State Canners, Inc. v. Hooks 243 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1952
Canyon State Canners, Inc. v. Hooks 243 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1952
154 P. 1042 , L.R.A.1918F, 713.
Lundberg v. Bolon 194 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1948
Lundberg v. Bolon 194 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1948
154 P. 1042 , 1048 , L.R.A.
Podol v. Jacobs 173 P.2d 758 Ariz. 1946
Podol v. Jacobs 173 P.2d 758 Ariz. 1946
154 P. 1042 , L.R.A.1918F 713; , 184 P. 992 ; Seaside Nat’l , 277 P. 68 .
Cameron v. Lanier 108 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1940
Cameron v. Lanier 108 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1940
The leading case in this jurisdiction on the relation of principal and ag’ent, and the authority of the latter, , 154 Pac.
Bristol v. Moser 99 P.2d 706 Ariz. 1940
Bristol v. Moser 99 P.2d 706 Ariz. 1940
’ “But this statement is qualified by the statement in Brutinel v. Nygren, supra, [ , 154 Pac.
O'Neil v. Goldenetz 85 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1938
O'Neil v. Goldenetz 85 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1938
Lois Grunow Memorial Clinic v. Davis 66 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1937
Lois Grunow Memorial Clinic v. Davis 66 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1937
Litchfield v. Green 33 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1934
Litchfield v. Green 33 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1934
Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World v. Madrigal 12 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1932
Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World v. Madrigal 12 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1932
L. R. A. 1918F 713, 154 Pac.
J. D. Halstead Lumber Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 298 P. 925 Ariz. 1931
J. D. Halstead Lumber Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 298 P. 925 Ariz. 1931
L. R. A. 1918F 713, 154 Pac.
Atlantic National Bank of Boston v. Korrick 242 P. 1009 Ariz. 1926
Atlantic National Bank of Boston v. Korrick 242 P. 1009 Ariz. 1926
297 ; , L. R. A. 1918F, 713, 154 Pac.
United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Exploration Co. v. Wallapai Mining & Development Co. 230 P. 1109 Ariz. 1924