Cabanne v. De Witt

Third Circuit

Cabanne v. De Witt

10 F.2d 504, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2234

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 16, 1926

DocketNo. 3377

StatusPublished

This text of 10 F.2d 504 (Cabanne v. De Witt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cabanne v. De Witt, 10 F.2d 504, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2234 (3d Cir. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

WOOLLEY, Circuit Judge.

This case was tried (with one additional matter) on substantially the same evidence which, on the previous writ of error, we said was enough to warrant the submission of the case to the jury. 2 F.(2d) 322. The issue at the first trial, as at the second, concerned the liability of the defendants, as principals, on a contract made by their agent with the plaintiff, based primarily on their authorization and secondarily on their ratification of his acts. As against the judgment of nonsuit we found there was sufficient evidence to justify the jury rendering a verdict for the plaintiff on the ground of authorization. That issue was also submitted at the trial under review and to this aspect of the judgment entered on the verdict (which may have been rendered on that issue) no assignments of error are directed.

The defendants’ greviance is reflected in a series of assignments of error relating to one thing, which was the action of the court in admitting in evidence a certain exhibit (and the attending correspondence) purporting to be a contract between the defendants and the plaintiff for the exploitation of a picture in which provision was made for payment of the plaintiff’s claim. This evidence had nothing to do with the issue of authorization. It had only to do with the issue of ratification. We think, the court did not err in admitting it, for while it does not show ratification conclusively, there is enough in it to show that the defendants knew of the plaintiff’s claim and, with that knowledge, provided for its payment. To this extent the instrument (and the pertinent correspondence), taken in connection with all the other facts in the case, had an evidential bearing on the issue of ratification. It was not much, but it was something. Except for errors assigned in admitting this instrument (and correspondence) and in refusing to charge the point submitted in reference to it, the judgment stands unattaeked.

Having considered the matter in the varied aspects urged by the plaintiffs in error, we find the judgment must be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WOOLLEY, Circuit Judge.

This case was tried (with one additional matter) on substantially the same evidence which, on the previous writ of error, we said was enough to warrant the submission of the case to the jury. 2 F.(2d) 322. The issue at the first trial, as at the second, concerned the liability of the defendants, as principals, on a contract made by their agent with the plaintiff, based primarily on their authorization and secondarily on their ratification of his acts. As against the judgment of nonsuit we found there was sufficient evidence to justify the jury rendering a verdict for the plaintiff on the ground of authorization. That issue was also submitted at the trial under review and to this aspect of the judgment entered on the verdict (which may have been rendered on that issue) no assignments of error are directed.

The defendants’ greviance is reflected in a series of assignments of error relating to one thing, which was the action of the court in admitting in evidence a certain exhibit (and the attending correspondence) purporting to be a contract between the defendants and the plaintiff for the exploitation of a picture in which provision was made for payment of the plaintiff’s claim. This evidence had nothing to do with the issue of authorization. It had only to do with the issue of ratification. We think, the court did not err in admitting it, for while it does not show ratification conclusively, there is enough in it to show that the defendants knew of the plaintiff’s claim and, with that knowledge, provided for its payment. To this extent the instrument (and the pertinent correspondence), taken in connection with all the other facts in the case, had an evidential bearing on the issue of ratification. It was not much, but it was something. Except for errors assigned in admitting this instrument (and correspondence) and in refusing to charge the point submitted in reference to it, the judgment stands unattaeked.

Having considered the matter in the varied aspects urged by the plaintiffs in error, we find the judgment must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 F.2d 504, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cabanne-v-de-witt-ca3-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack