> > >  A corporation is a legal fiction and can act only through its agents.
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
> 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
------------ Excerpt from page 906 S.W.2d 228
> >  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
> 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
> Dieter v. Baker Service Tools, 739 S.W.2d 405 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1987, writ
The relationship of attorney and client may be implied from the conduct of the parties.
County Ranch Co. v. Alamo Lumber Co., 663 S.W.2d 627, 633 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1983, writ ref'd
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).