| Ark. | Dec 3, 1906
There was no evidence to support the verdict against appellant. Powell was not its agent, and had no authority to represent it. There is no evidence to warrant the conclusion that appellant “held him out” as its agent. Special agents must act strictly within the limits of their powers. Amer. Ins. Co. v. Hampton, 54 Ark. 75" date_filed="1890-12-20" court="Ark." case_name="American Insurance v. Hampton">54 Ark. 75, 78; Burlington Ins. Co. v. Kennerly, 60 Ark. 532" date_filed="1895-05-18" court="Ark." case_name="Burlington Insurance v. Kennerly">60 Ark. 532; German-American Ins. Co. v. Humphrey, 62 Ark. 348" date_filed="1896-04-25" court="Ark." case_name="German-American Insurance v. Humphrey">62 Ark. 348; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Abbey, 76 Ark. 328" date_filed="1905-07-22" court="Ark." case_name="Mutual Life Insurance v. Abbey">76 Ark. 328.
Carter had no authority to appoint Powell agent for appellant. That was exclusively, the province of H. L. Remmei.
Appellee .should have ascertained the scope of Powell’s authority before paying him the premium. Danley v. Crawl, 28 Ark. 98; City Electric Ry. Co. v. First National Bank, 62 Ark. 33" date_filed="1896-02-08" court="Ark." case_name="City Electric Street Railway Co. v. First National Exchange Bank">62 Ark. 33.
Powell alone, under the proof, was liable to .appellee for the unauthorized premium which he had collected.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.