Sec. 266. Agent's Knowledge Obtained In Other Transactions

As to how far a principal is held chargeable with knowledge of facts communicated to his agent, where the notice was not received or the knowledge obtained in the very transaction in question, there is conflict.27

It has been held that "notice to and the knowledge of the agent or attorney acquired in prior transactions, and present in his mind while he is exercising the powers and discharging the duties of his agency, are notice to and the knowledge of his principal."28 On the other hand, it is said " that he (the principal) is not chargeable with notice of such facts if they come to the knowledge of his agent whilst engaged in a transaction with which the principal has no concern, is equally well settled " as that the principal is chargeable with notice of all such facts as come to his agent's knowledge while acting within the scope of his agency.29

26 Pine Mountain Co. v. Bailey. 94 Fed. 260 (1899), (citing Astor v. Wells, 4 Wheat. 4G6; Fitzsimmons v. Express Co., 40 Ga. 330, 336; Alexander v. University, 57 Ind. 466, 476: Leekins v. Nordyke, 66 Iowa 471, 475; 24 N. W. I; Adams Mining Co. v. Senter, 26 Mich. 73, 77).

27See Constant v. University of Rochester. Ill N. T. 611 (1888); Kauffman v. Robey. 60 Tex. 311 (1883) ; Wittenbeck v. Parker, 102 Cal. 100-103 (1894).

28 Pine Mountain Co. v. Bailey, 94 Fed. 260 (1899).

29 Kauffman v. Robey, supra.

Sec. 267. Usury Of Agent

While the rule prevails in some states that a loan is not rendered usurious by the fact that the lender's agent, without his authority, knowledge or participation, extorted money from the borrower upon the false pretense that part of it was a bonus for his principal,30 the contrary or a modified view is taken in others.31

30 Estevez v. Purdy, 66 N. T. 446 (1876). See also Bell v. Day, 32 N. Y. 168 (1865); Algur v. Gardner, 54 N. Y. 360 (1873); Condlt v. Baldwin, 21 N. Y. 219 (1860).

31 See Clark & Skyles on Agency, p. 1126. The following cases bear on the subject: Sherwood v. Roundtree, 32 Fed. Rep. 113; Borcherling v. Terfz. 40 N. J. Eq. 502; White v. Dwyer, 31 N. J. Eq. 40; Condert v. Flagg. 31 N. J. Eq. 394; Phillips v. Roberts, 90 111. 492; Payne v. Newcomb, 100 111. 611; Meers v. Stevens, 106 111. 549; Cox v. Life Ins. Co., 113 111. 382; Boylston v. Bain, 90 111. 283; Wyllis v. Ault, 46 Iowa 46; New England Co. v. Hendrickson, 13 Nebr. 574; Cheney v. White, 5 Nebr. 261.