Roland v. People's Bank of Somerset County

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The People’s Bank of Somerset County filed a creditor’s bill for the sale of real estate in Worcester County of which Mary E. Hamilton, the alleged debtor, was seized at the time of her death. The claim of the bank, which the bill sought to ²¹⁹ enforce, consisted of a promissory note for tlie sum of one hundred dollars, payable to its order, and bearing the names of Mary E. Hamilton and F. B. Jones as makers. The only testimony offered to prove the indebtedness was that of the cashier of the bank.

He testified that both the names on the note were signed by F. B. Jones, who said that he had authority to sign the name of Mary E. Hamilton as her agent. JJie witness stated that he did not know Mary E. Hamilton and that the hank never had any communication with her on Hie subject of the note. Other evidence offered by the plaintiff was to the effect that E. B. Jones was the brother of Mary E. Hamilton and occupied a small farm in Worcester County which he had purchased in her name. The loan from the hank was procured by him, as be informed the cashier, with a view to the purchase of a set of tires for an autotruck which he used in hauling produce from the farm.

There was no proof from any source as to any real or apparent authority of Mr. Jones to sign his sister’s name to the note except his own statement to that effect. A non-resident daughter of Mrs. Hamilton, as her only heir-at-law, has excepted to the evidence in the case as insufficient to prove that her mother was indebted to the plaintiff, and has appealed on that ground from the decree by which the claim was Heated as proven and the real estate of the decedent was directed to he sold. The principle which controls a question of this nature is well settled. It is that the mere declarations of an alleged agent are not competent and adequate proof of his agency.

Before such declarations can he admitted there must be other evidence from which the agency may be inferred. Wilson v. Kelso, 115 Md. 171 ; National Mechanics Bank v. National Bank of Baltimore, 36 Md. 20 . In Oxweld Acetylene Co. v. Hughes, 126 Md. 440 , we said: “Ft is a sound and elementary rule that an agent can not by his own declarations extend his powers beyond their prescribed limits. The attitude of the principal himself must be such as to justify the belief, on the part of a person exercising' reasonable prudence, that. ²²⁰ the agent is clothed with the requisite authority, before the principal can be held responsible for the agent’s undertakings in excess of the powers actually delegated.

Brager v. Levy, 122 Md. 560 ; 31 Cyc. 1331; 2 Corpus Juris, 572.” In this case the evidence admits of the inference that Mr. Jones was his sister’s agent for the management of her farm. The extent of his apparent authority to represent her in that capacity was to do such acts as were reasonably necessary