Brutinel v. Nygren’s Empirical Analysis
1916
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably Parker v. Ohio Oil Co. (1939), Cote v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. (1981)
3 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on President, Directors & Co. of Mechanics' Bank v. New-York & New Haven Railroad · 24 Tex. Civ. App. 402 - Williams v. Moore · Atlee v. Fink · Ballentine & Boone v. Mercer · Sims v. St. John
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The mere fact that one is dealing with an agent, whether the agency be general or special, should be a danger signal, and like a railroad crossing suggests the duty to ‘stop, look, and listen,’ and if he would bind the principal is bound to ascertain, not only the fact of agency, but the nature and extent of the authority, and in case either is controverted the burden of proof is upon him to establish it. In fine, he must exercise due care and caution in the premises. ...””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““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 call the agency a special or general one.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The primary object of an agency is to bring the principal into contractual relations with third parties —into privity with them; and it is elementary, therefore, to say that a principal is not responsible for contracts which he has neither directly nor indirectly authorized. “ It is axiomatic in the law of agency that no one can become the agent of another except by the will of the principal, either expressed or implied from particular circumstances; that an agent cannot create in himself an authority to do a particular act by its performance; and that the authority of an agent cannot be proved by his own statement that he is such.’ Graves v. Horton, 38 Minn. 66 , 35 N. W. 568 . “Of course, the mere order of proof is not vital. This is within the legal discretion of the trial judge, and if he allows evidence of the agent’s acts before proof of the agency to do the particular act in question, it will not be reversible error, provided proof of such agency is established at some stage of the trial. But where the nature and extent of an agent’s authority is directly involved, it must never be lost sight of; and this cannot be too strongly emphasized, that it ultimately may be established only by tracing it to its source in some ivord or act of the alleged principal. The agent certainly cannot confer authority upon himself, or make himself agent, merely by acting as such, or saying that he is one. Mr. Mechem says: “ ‘The agent’s authority, moreover, may not be shown merely by pro”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Litchfield v. Green
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.