3971627228 - > [17]> [18]> [19] A corporation is a...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
> [17]> [18]> [19] A corporation is a legal fiction and can act only through its agents. > Underwriters Life Ins. Co. v. Cobb, 746 S.W.2d at 821. The general rule of agency law is that notice to an agent, when the agent is acting within the scope of his authority with respect to a matter over which his authority extends, constitutes notice to the principal. > Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. v. Allen, 388 F.2d 126 (5th Cir.1967); > University State Bank v. Gifford-Hill Concrete Corp., 431 S.W.2d 561 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The knowledge of the agent is the knowledge of the company itself. > Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Lucas, 281 S.W.2d 188 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston 1955, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The test is whether the agent was acting within the scope of the agency relationship, not whether the principal authorized the specific wrongful act. > Celtic Life Ins. Co., 885 S.W.2d at 99. 906 S.W.2d 218, Maryland Ins. Co. v. Head Indus. Coatings and Services, Inc., (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1995) ------------ Excerpt from page 906 S.W.2d 228 > [1]> [2] In order to hold Bell liable for the intentional torts of its attorneys, it was incumbent upon Wilson to prove that Barrera was an agent or employee of Bell when the alleged tortious acts were committed. > Norton v. Martin, 703 S.W.2d 267, 272 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Wilson must also have proven that the act or acts subjecting the corporation to liability were within the scope of the agent's employment. > Leadon v. Kimbrough Brothers Lumber Co., 484 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex.1972); > Dieter v. Baker Service Tools, 739 S.W.2d 405 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1987, writ denied). The relationship of attorney and client may be implied from the conduct of the parties. > Duval County Ranch Co. v. Alamo Lumber Co., 663 S.W.2d 627, 633 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.). An attorney-client relationship is an agency relationship and generally the acts and omissions within the scope of his or her employment are regarded as the clients' acts. > Gavenda v. Strata Energy, Inc., 705 S.W.2d 690, 693 (Tex.1986). To determine liability of the principal, we determine if the act complained of arose directly out of the business that the servant was hired to do. > Green v. Jackson, 674 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.). A principal is responsible for an unlawful act of his agent where the act is committed by the agent for the purpose of accomplishing the mission entrusted to him by his principal. > Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Love, 132 Tex. 280, 121 S.W.2d 986, 990 (Comm.App.1938); > Arterbury v. American Bank & Trust Co., 553 S.W.2d 943, 949 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1977, no writ).
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 31

3971627228 - > [17]> [18]> [19] A corporation is a...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online