Gussenhoven v. Turner

236 A.D. 855

This text of 236 A.D. 855 (Gussenhoven v. Turner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gussenhoven v. Turner, 236 A.D. 855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Opinion

Judgment of the County Court of Westchester county reversed on the law, with costs, and judgment directed in favor of the plaintiff for the amount demanded in the complaint, with costs. The proof in this record that the plaintiff directed the defendant to pay the purchase price to the man who delivered the horse was not proof that that man had authority to indorse the plaintiff’s name on a check given by the defendant in payment for the horse. The man was an agent of limited authority, and not a general manager as was involved in Burstein v. Sullivan (134 App. Div. 623). A special agent of limited authority authorized to receive payment is not by that fact authorized to indorse commercial paper. (Robinson v. Chemical National Bank, 86 N. Y. 404, 407; Bernheimer v. Herrman, 44 Hun, 110; Dowdall v. Borgfeldt & Co., 113 N. Y. Supp. 1069 [not officially reported].) The misappropriation of the proceeds of the check was made possible by the act of the defendant in guaranteeing the special agent’s indorsement of the plaintiff’s name as a matter of accommodation to that individual after he had received the horse for which he had given the check in payment. Order denying motion to set aside the verdict and to grant a new trial reversed and motion granted to the extent of setting aside the verdict, without costs. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Robinson v. . Chemical National Bank
86 N.Y. 404 (New York Court of Appeals, 1881)
Burstein v. Sullivan
134 A.D. 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)
Dowdall v. George Borgfeldt & Co.
113 N.Y.S. 1069 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
236 A.D. 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gussenhoven-v-turner-nyappdiv-1932.