agent cannot claim (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

agent cannot claim in Texas

9 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2023 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
A to Z Rental Center v. Burrisgreen
texapp · 1986 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2006
2 sentences

2006Burris , 714 S.W.2d at 435 .

2006Burris , 714 S.W.2d at 435 .

24
Anderson v. Smithgreen
texapp · 1965 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1986–2001
2 sentences

2001See Burris, 714 S.W.2d at 435 , citing Anderson v. Smith, 398 S.W.2d 635, 637 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1965, no writ).

2001See Burris, 714 S.W.2d at 435 , citing Anderson v. Smith, 398 S.W.2d 635, 637 (Tex. Civ.

23
Crisp v. Southwest Bancshares Leasing Co.green
texapp · 1979 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
1 sentence

1988Crisp v. Southwest Bancshares Leasing Co., 586 S.W.2d 610, 615 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Centennial Mut.

11
Carter v. Waltongreen
texapp · 1971 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986
2 sentences

1986Anderson v. Smith, supra; 2 Wil-liston on Contracts § 288, supra. The test of disclosure is the other party’s knowledge, or reasonable grounds to know, of the principal’s existence or identity, irrespective of the source from which the other party obtains it. 2 Williston on Contracts § 288, at 357, supra. See also Johnson v. Armstrong, 83 Tex. 325 , 18 S.W. 594, 595 (1892); Carter v. Walton, supra. The other party’s actual knowledge of the principal, not just the other party’s suspicion, is the test. 2 Williston on Contracts § 288, at 355-356, supra. Regarding the liability on corporate contra

1986See Carter v. Walton, supra; Lachmann v. Houston Chronicle Publishing Company, supra. An agent cannot claim immunity from personal liability merely because the party with whom the agent dealt had a means of discovering the agent’s representative capacity.

11
Johnson v. Armstrong & Messergreen
tex · 1892 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986
2 sentences

1986Anderson v. Smith, supra; 2 Wil-liston on Contracts § 288, supra. The test of disclosure is the other party’s knowledge, or reasonable grounds to know, of the principal’s existence or identity, irrespective of the source from which the other party obtains it. 2 Williston on Contracts § 288, at 357, supra. See also Johnson v. Armstrong, 83 Tex. 325 , 18 S.W. 594, 595 (1892); Carter v. Walton, supra. The other party’s actual knowledge of the principal, not just the other party’s suspicion, is the test. 2 Williston on Contracts § 288, at 355-356, supra. Regarding the liability on corporate contra

1986Anderson v. Smith, supra; 2 Wil-liston on Contracts § 288, supra. The test of disclosure is the other party’s knowledge, or reasonable grounds to know, of the principal’s existence or identity, irrespective of the source from which the other party obtains it. 2 Williston on Contracts § 288, at 357, supra. See also Johnson v. Armstrong, 83 Tex. 325 , 18 S.W. 594, 595 (1892); Carter v. Walton, supra. The other party’s actual knowledge of the principal, not just the other party’s suspicion, is the test. 2 Williston on Contracts § 288, at 355-356, supra. Regarding the liability on corporate contra

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Burch v. Hancock green
texapp · 2001
2 sentences

2023Burch, 56 S.W.3d at 262 .

2008Id. at 262 .

32007–2023
Lachmann v. Houston Chronicle Publishing Company green
texapp · 1964
1 sentence

1986See Carter v. Walton, supra; Lachmann v. Houston Chronicle Publishing Company, supra. An agent cannot claim immunity from personal liability merely because the party with whom the agent dealt had a means of discovering the agent’s representative capacity.

11986–1986

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check