The acts which create estoppel must be those of the principal to be estopped or of some one authorized by him. The acts and declarations of the alleged agent cannot estop the principal from denying the fact of the agency, and are not even admissible in evidence to establish such agency, if such principal has not

16 Holt v. Schneider, 57 Neb. 523;

77 N. W. 1086; De Witt v. De Witt, 202 Pa. St. 255; 51 Atl. 987; Telephone Co. v. Brown. 104 Tenn. 56;

78 Am. St. Rep. 906; 50 L. R. A. 277; 55 S. W. 155.

17 Martin v. Webb, 110 U. S. 7; Blake v. Mfg. Co. (N. J. Eq.), 38 Atl. 241; Hanover National Bank v. American, etc., Co., 148 N. Y. 612; 51 Am. St. Rep. 721; 43 N. E. 72.

18 Grant v. Humerick (Ia.), 94 N. W. 510; Harrison National Bank v. Austin, 65 Neb. 632; 59 L. R. A. 294; 91 N. W. 540.

19 Prescott v. Flinn, 9 Bing. 19; Williams v. Mitchell, 17 Mass. 98;

Blake v. Mfg. Co. (N. J. Eq.), 38 Atl. 241.

20 Moore v. Publishing Association, 95 Fed. 485; Lester v. Webb, 1 All. (Mass.) 34; Perry v. Ins. Co., 67 N. H. 291; 68 Am. St. Rep. 668; 33 Atl. 731; Fifth National Bank v. Phosphate Co., 119 N. Y. 256; 23 N. E. 737. "The recognition by a corporation of acts on the part of an agent similar in character to those which may be in dispute tends strongly to establish the agent's authority." Olcott v. R. R. Co., 27 N. Y. 546, 560; 84 Am. Dec. 298. (Citing Munn v. Commission Co., 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 44; 8 Am. Dec. 219; Wood v. R. R. Co., 8 N. Y. 160.) acquiesced therein,1 though his testimony to the fact of his authority is admissible.2