Feiber v. Home Silk Mills

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Feiber v. Home Silk Mills

148 N.Y.S. 259

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 18, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 148 N.Y.S. 259 (Feiber v. Home Silk Mills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Feiber v. Home Silk Mills, 148 N.Y.S. 259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon re-examination of the evidence in this case, we think that there was sufficient evidence of the modification of the contract to carry that issue to the jury. In view of Knight’s testimony that he was the treasurer and manager of the defendant company, his authority to employ the plaintiff was sufficiently evidenced. The plaintiff denied that he had any information as to the alleged limitation of Knight’s authority, and the jury believed his denial. An issue of fact having been presented, and the jury having accepted the testimony of the plaintiff, we think that the judgment "based upon the verdict should not be disturbed.

Upon reargument, the judgment is affirmed, with costs, and the former order of this court, reversing said judgment, vacated.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon re-examination of the evidence in this case, we think that there was sufficient evidence of the modification of the contract to carry that issue to the jury. In view of Knight’s testimony that he was the treasurer and manager of the defendant company, his authority to employ the plaintiff was sufficiently evidenced. The plaintiff denied that he had any information as to the alleged limitation of Knight’s authority, and the jury believed his denial. An issue of fact having been presented, and the jury having accepted the testimony of the plaintiff, we think that the judgment "based upon the verdict should not be disturbed.

Upon reargument, the judgment is affirmed, with costs, and the former order of this court, reversing said judgment, vacated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 N.Y.S. 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feiber-v-home-silk-mills-nyappterm-1914.