In 1919 defendant was operating as a trust company and in June of that year sold to plaintiff a note and certain bonds of the aggregate face value of $3,000. Plaintiff claims that, as a part of the contract of sale, defendant agreed that, if at any time thereafter while plaintiff was the owner of the paper he should so request, the defendant would repurchase it at “full face value and accrued interest.” It is upon the alleged contract оf repurchase that this action is brought. After a verdict for plaintiff, and an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding or a new trial, defendant appeals from thе judgment.
1. Defendant’s first point is that Mr. Schlesselman, then secretary of defendant, had no authority, in selling the securities, to bind defendant by a contract to repurсhase them, at their face value and on demand of plaintiff. There was no proof of express authority. Proof of any actual authority is equally lаcking unless by implication from the secretary’s power, whatever it was, to buy and sell securities for defendant. Authority to sell certainly does not include authоrity to repurchase, but the precise argument is that an officer’s authority to buy bonds for a corporation, implies that he may repurchase thosе sold by it. But that is not the question now. That an officer has general power to buy for the corporation does not signify that he has the power to sell seсurities and contract to repurchase them at any time on demand.
If the officers of a trust company have the implied authority, solely because they may buy securities for it, to agree for it to repurchase on demand and at face value those they sell, they have the power to subject it to a contingent liability the sudden maturing of which, by the concurring demands оf a large number of purchasers, may easily absorb its capital instantaneously. Certainly *325 such a power is not the design of the law, nor should it be permitted to any one officer of a quasi public financial institution such as a bank or a trust company. It is rather one of those unusual powers, accompanied by such hazards if used indiscriminately or too much, that it must be considered restricted to the board of directors, except as they themselves authorize its usе in special cases.
We hold that there was no such implied authority. A power not incidental or necessary to one that is expressed does not attend the latter by implication. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Nat. Bank of Commerce,
“It is not necessary to grant to agents any such extensivе powers in order that they may accomplish the purpose for which they are engaged, viz: the present sale by them of an article which belongs tо the principal. Public policy, I think, forbids any such inferential powers, and if vendees seek to place liabilities of that nature *326 upon principals, it is nоt too much to require that they should show actual authority of the agent to make such contracts.”
The same thought controlled in Friedman & Sons v. Kelly,
“He (defendant) is therefore precludеd from asserting the apparent authority of the agent to make the contract, which, if made, and was binding in every case, would probably result in entailing bankruptcy upon the most stable manufacturers and wholesalers who attempted to sustain their credit by abiding such conditions.”
Compare John Stember & Co. v. Keene (Tex. Civ. App.)
We are not overlooking the custоm, of which the record carries evidence, of trust companies, including defendant, to maintain a market for the securities in which they deal To do so, thеy repurchase, in large volume, paper originally sold by them. But they do so at their own option and not under the compulsion of contract. Moreоver, the price they pay is that of the market at the time being and not the face value.
Actual authority, express or implied, being negatived, there remains the possibility of apparent authority. We do not discuss it at length because there must be a) new trial. But it is proper to invite attention to two things which must be bоrne in mind in every attempt to prove apparent as distinguished from actual authority. First, such authority cannot be proved by the actions and statements (оther than testimonial) of the agent. Sencerbox v. McGrade,
2. The other thing to be borne in mind is that only those who have acted in reliance on apparent authority are entitled to rеcover where the agent possessed no actual authority,' express or implied. Bloomingdale v. Cushman,
3. Mr. Schlesselman was not in the employ of the defendant at the time of the trial. Some time аfter he quit its employ, he is alleged to have made admissions tending to substantiate plaintiff’s version of the agreement to repurchase. Testimony of thosе admissions was received over objection.
That was error for two reasons: First, even if Mr. Schlesselman was still in the employ of defendant at the time of the alleged admission, it would not have been competent as against defendant, his principal, without showing that the admission was made within the scope of his authority and the course of defendant’s business. Longman v. Anderson,
At thе trial, it was suggested that, even though Mr. Schlessel-man lacked any authority to promise plaintiff a repurchase on his demand, plaintiff would yet be entitled to rеcover if he parted with his money on the faith of such a promise. The answer is that this
*328
action stands on express contract and is not to recover damages for fraudulent misrepresentation. At least that was not the theory of the trial. In contrast see Picha v. Cent. Met. Bank,
Order reversed.