Cochran & Rathbun v. Newton

5 Denio 482
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1848·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

By the Court, Beardsley, Ch. J.

The authority of Flowers, admitting him to have been the general agent of the association, did not enable him to bind his principals in a case like the present. It was not within the scope of his agency. The authority of paitners in a mercantile firm is at least as comprehensive as- that of the agent in this case; and yet it .could not be pretended that a general partner could bind the firm to pay [484]*484the costs of a suit in favor of one of its clerks brought for a violation of his personal rights. The suits for which these costs were claimed were remote from the business of the association, and its members are not liable on the contract which it is said their agent entered into. • The report must be set aside.

Report set aside.

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

Cochran & Rathbun v. Newton, 5 Denio 482 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1848).

5 Denio 482 (Cochran & Rathbun v. Newton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cheney v. Ricks
48 N.E. 75 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1897)
Kirby v. Western Wheeled Scraper Co.
70 N.W. 1052 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1897)
Eaton v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad
57 N.Y. 382 (New York Court of Appeals, 1874)