S.W.2d at 454. This question presupposes that Price, by issuing cashier’s cheeks, had apparent authority to make representations about the soundness of Dilling’s investment. To establish apparent authority, one must show that a principal either know ingly permitted an agent to hold itself out as having authority or showed such lack of ordinary care as to clothe the agent with indicia of authority. Ames v. Great S. Bank, 672 S.W.2d 447, 450 (Tex.1984). A court may consider only the conduct of the principal leading a third party to believe that the agent has authority in determining whether an agent has apparent authority. Southwest Title Ins. Co. v. Northland Bldg. Corp., 552 S.W.2d 425, 428 (Tex.1977). See also Trahan v. Southland Life Ins. Co., 155 Tex. 548, 289 S.W.2d 753, 755 (1956) (<HOLDING>). NationsBank correctly argues that it cannot
holding that apparent authority refers to a third partys reasonable belief that the principal has authorized the acts of its agent it arises from the principals indirect or direct manifestations to a third party recognizing that statements made by agent on behalf of principal to principals attorney may be protected by principals attorneyclient privilege holding that a principal is not hable for the actions of an agent when these actions exceed the agents authority and the thirdparty has knowledge that the agent does not have the authority asserted holding that it is the principals conduct attitude and knowledge that determines whether an agent had apparent authority holding that a principal is bound by a contract entered into by the principals agent on her behalf if the agent had authority to bind the principal