law itself makes presumption in Oklahoma

1937In the case of McDonald v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271 , 190 P. 558 , we held that: “The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Leach, 32 Okla. 706 , 123 P. 419 ; Gast v. Barnes, 44 Okla. 107 , 143 P. 856 ; Pierce Oil Corporation v. Myer, 117 Okla. 161 , 245 P. 863 : Mutual Oil Co. v. Roach, 116 Okla. 106 , 243 P. 504 .

1937In the case of McDonald v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271 , 190 P. 558 , we held that: “The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Leach, 32 Okla. 706 , 123 P. 419 ; Gast v. Barnes, 44 Okla. 107 , 143 P. 856 ; Pierce Oil Corporation v. Myer, 117 Okla. 161 , 245 P. 863 : Mutual Oil Co. v. Roach, 116 Okla. 106 , 243 P. 504 .

1926“The fact of agency being- in issue, evidence of the alleged agent’s own declarations, statements or admissions, as distinguished from his sworn testimony as a witness, is not admissible against fin alleged principal, for the purpose of establishing, enlarging, or renewing his authority, nor can his authority be established by showing that he acted as agent, or that he claimed to have the powers which he assumed to exercise. ” These cases above cited are followed in the case of Thorp Oil & Specialty Co. v. Home Oil Refining Co., 79 Okla. 225 , 192 Pac. 573 ; Oklahoma Automobile Co. v. Benner,

1926“The fact of agency being- in issue, evidence of the alleged agent’s own declarations, statements or admissions, as distinguished from his sworn testimony as a witness, is not admissible against fin alleged principal, for the purpose of establishing, enlarging, or renewing his authority, nor can his authority be established by showing that he acted as agent, or that he claimed to have the powers which he assumed to exercise. ” These cases above cited are followed in the case of Thorp Oil & Specialty Co. v. Home Oil Refining Co., 79 Okla. 225 , 192 Pac. 573 ; Oklahoma Automobile Co. v. Benner,

1937In the case of McDonald v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271 , 190 P. 558 , we held that: “The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Leach, 32 Okla. 706 , 123 P. 419 ; Gast v. Barnes, 44 Okla. 107 , 143 P. 856 ; Pierce Oil Corporation v. Myer, 117 Okla. 161 , 245 P. 863 : Mutual Oil Co. v. Roach, 116 Okla. 106 , 243 P. 504 .

1937In the case of McDonald v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271 , 190 P. 558 , we held that: “The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Leach, 32 Okla. 706 , 123 P. 419 ; Gast v. Barnes, 44 Okla. 107 , 143 P. 856 ; Pierce Oil Corporation v. Myer, 117 Okla. 161 , 245 P. 863 : Mutual Oil Co. v. Roach, 116 Okla. 106 , 243 P. 504 .

1935In the case of Whitehorn v. Mosier, 119 *278 Okla. 155, 245 P. 553 , this court quoted with approval from the McDonald v. Strawn Case, supra, in which it is said: “The law itself makes no presumption of agency and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” The court also quoted with approval from the case of McFarlane v. Winters (Utah) 155 P. 437 , as follows: “We think it may still be safely affirmed that, where it is sought to hold one person responsible * * * for the torts committed

1925In the case of McDonald v. Strawn, supra, this court announces the following rule: “The law itself makes no presumption of *157 agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleges it.” In the case of McFarlane v. Winters (Utah) 155 Pac. 437 , in the body of the opinion, 2nd column, p. 439, we find this language; “We think it may still be safely affirmed that where it is sought to hold one person responsible * * * for the torts committed by another, whether such other be the child of the o

1935“The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” This was also the holding of this court in McDonald, Adm’r, v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271 , 190 P. 558 ; Reed v. Robinson, 83 Okla. 68 , 200 P. 773 ; Bourland v. Mosier et al., 98 Okla. 262 , 225 P. 348 ; Commerce Trust Co. v. James, 119 Okla. 296 , 249 P. 407 .

1935“The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” This was also the holding of this court in McDonald, Adm’r, v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271 , 190 P. 558 ; Reed v. Robinson, 83 Okla. 68 , 200 P. 773 ; Bourland v. Mosier et al., 98 Okla. 262 , 225 P. 348 ; Commerce Trust Co. v. James, 119 Okla. 296 , 249 P. 407 .

1926“The fact of agency being- in issue, evidence of the alleged agent’s own declarations, statements or admissions, as distinguished from his sworn testimony as a witness, is not admissible against fin alleged principal, for the purpose of establishing, enlarging, or renewing his authority, nor can his authority be established by showing that he acted as agent, or that he claimed to have the powers which he assumed to exercise. ” These cases above cited are followed in the case of Thorp Oil & Specialty Co. v. Home Oil Refining Co., 79 Okla. 225 , 192 Pac. 573 ; Oklahoma Automobile Co. v. Benner,

1926“The fact of agency being- in issue, evidence of the alleged agent’s own declarations, statements or admissions, as distinguished from his sworn testimony as a witness, is not admissible against fin alleged principal, for the purpose of establishing, enlarging, or renewing his authority, nor can his authority be established by showing that he acted as agent, or that he claimed to have the powers which he assumed to exercise. ” These cases above cited are followed in the case of Thorp Oil & Specialty Co. v. Home Oil Refining Co., 79 Okla. 225 , 192 Pac. 573 ; Oklahoma Automobile Co. v. Benner,

1974Most of these can appropriately be explained, but even so the only evidence that transferee was an agent is contained in the lease agreement which sets out that trans-feror “shall have sole possession, control and use of the vehicle” but then goes on to effectively give transferee all possession and control. “ * * * the law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence but also its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleges it.” Agee v. Gant (1966), Okl., 412 P.2d 155 at 160 .

1966In Coe v. Esau, Okl., 377 P.2d 815 , we held that the law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence hut also its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleges it.

1963Also in Farmers Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange v. Little, 191 Okl. 244 , 129 P.2d 70 , we stated: “The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but the nature and extent thereof, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleges it.” Our approval of the judgment determining that the contract of February 17, 1960, was not a contract of plaintiff with defendants disposes of plaintiff’s contention that plaintiff was a contractor.

1963Also in Farmers Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange v. Little, 191 Okl. 244 , 129 P.2d 70 , we stated: “The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but the nature and extent thereof, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleges it.” Our approval of the judgment determining that the contract of February 17, 1960, was not a contract of plaintiff with defendants disposes of plaintiff’s contention that plaintiff was a contractor.

1937In the case of McDonald v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271 , 190 P. 558 , we held that: “The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Leach, 32 Okla. 706 , 123 P. 419 ; Gast v. Barnes, 44 Okla. 107 , 143 P. 856 ; Pierce Oil Corporation v. Myer, 117 Okla. 161 , 245 P. 863 : Mutual Oil Co. v. Roach, 116 Okla. 106 , 243 P. 504 .

1937In the case of McDonald v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271 , 190 P. 558 , we held that: “The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Leach, 32 Okla. 706 , 123 P. 419 ; Gast v. Barnes, 44 Okla. 107 , 143 P. 856 ; Pierce Oil Corporation v. Myer, 117 Okla. 161 , 245 P. 863 : Mutual Oil Co. v. Roach, 116 Okla. 106 , 243 P. 504 .

1937In the case of McDonald v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271 , 190 P. 558 , we held that: “The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Leach, 32 Okla. 706 , 123 P. 419 ; Gast v. Barnes, 44 Okla. 107 , 143 P. 856 ; Pierce Oil Corporation v. Myer, 117 Okla. 161 , 245 P. 863 : Mutual Oil Co. v. Roach, 116 Okla. 106 , 243 P. 504 .

1937In the case of McDonald v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271 , 190 P. 558 , we held that: “The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Leach, 32 Okla. 706 , 123 P. 419 ; Gast v. Barnes, 44 Okla. 107 , 143 P. 856 ; Pierce Oil Corporation v. Myer, 117 Okla. 161 , 245 P. 863 : Mutual Oil Co. v. Roach, 116 Okla. 106 , 243 P. 504 .

1937In the case of McDonald v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271 , 190 P. 558 , we held that: “The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Leach, 32 Okla. 706 , 123 P. 419 ; Gast v. Barnes, 44 Okla. 107 , 143 P. 856 ; Pierce Oil Corporation v. Myer, 117 Okla. 161 , 245 P. 863 : Mutual Oil Co. v. Roach, 116 Okla. 106 , 243 P. 504 .

1937In the case of McDonald v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271 , 190 P. 558 , we held that: “The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Leach, 32 Okla. 706 , 123 P. 419 ; Gast v. Barnes, 44 Okla. 107 , 143 P. 856 ; Pierce Oil Corporation v. Myer, 117 Okla. 161 , 245 P. 863 : Mutual Oil Co. v. Roach, 116 Okla. 106 , 243 P. 504 .

1935“The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” This was also the holding of this court in McDonald, Adm’r, v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271 , 190 P. 558 ; Reed v. Robinson, 83 Okla. 68 , 200 P. 773 ; Bourland v. Mosier et al., 98 Okla. 262 , 225 P. 348 ; Commerce Trust Co. v. James, 119 Okla. 296 , 249 P. 407 .

1935“The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” This was also the holding of this court in McDonald, Adm’r, v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271 , 190 P. 558 ; Reed v. Robinson, 83 Okla. 68 , 200 P. 773 ; Bourland v. Mosier et al., 98 Okla. 262 , 225 P. 348 ; Commerce Trust Co. v. James, 119 Okla. 296 , 249 P. 407 .

1935“The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” This was also the holding of this court in McDonald, Adm’r, v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271 , 190 P. 558 ; Reed v. Robinson, 83 Okla. 68 , 200 P. 773 ; Bourland v. Mosier et al., 98 Okla. 262 , 225 P. 348 ; Commerce Trust Co. v. James, 119 Okla. 296 , 249 P. 407 .

1935“The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” This was also the holding of this court in McDonald, Adm’r, v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271 , 190 P. 558 ; Reed v. Robinson, 83 Okla. 68 , 200 P. 773 ; Bourland v. Mosier et al., 98 Okla. 262 , 225 P. 348 ; Commerce Trust Co. v. James, 119 Okla. 296 , 249 P. 407 .

1935In the case of Whitehorn v. Mosier, 119 *278 Okla. 155, 245 P. 553 , this court quoted with approval from the McDonald v. Strawn Case, supra, in which it is said: “The law itself makes no presumption of agency and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent, rests ordinarily upon the party who alleged it.” The court also quoted with approval from the case of McFarlane v. Winters (Utah) 155 P. 437 , as follows: “We think it may still be safely affirmed that, where it is sought to hold one person responsible * * * for the torts committed

1934“Agency will not bo presumed, but the burden is upon him who asserts agency to establish it by competent evidence the same as any other fact.” Weiser v. Doerksen, 136 Okla. 57 , 276 P. 225 .

1924“The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent rests ordinarily -upon the party Uiho alleged it.” In Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. Sutton et al., 30 Okla. 448 , 120 Pac. 1007 , this court held that: “The authority of an agent to receive payment for his principal must be proved by the party making payment; but the proof need not be direct, it may toe inferred from the circumstances of the case.” These authorities make it incumbent upon the defendant bank to make some proof of authority upo

1924“The law itself makes no presumption of agency, and the burden of proving agency, including not only the fact of its existence, but its nature and extent rests ordinarily -upon the party Uiho alleged it.” In Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. Sutton et al., 30 Okla. 448 , 120 Pac. 1007 , this court held that: “The authority of an agent to receive payment for his principal must be proved by the party making payment; but the proof need not be direct, it may toe inferred from the circumstances of the case.” These authorities make it incumbent upon the defendant bank to make some proof of authority upo