Hellman v. Forty-Second Street & Grand Street Ferry Railroad

New York Supreme Court

Hellman v. Forty-Second Street & Grand Street Ferry Railroad

26 N.Y.S. 553, 81 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 529, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 223, 74 Hun 529

DecidedDecember 15, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 26 N.Y.S. 553 (Hellman v. Forty-Second Street & Grand Street Ferry Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hellman v. Forty-Second Street & Grand Street Ferry Railroad, 26 N.Y.S. 553, 81 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 529, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 223, 74 Hun 529 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

VAN BRUNT, P. J.

This action was brought to recover damages for refusal of the defendant to transfer certain stock. The certificate which the plaintiff offered to surrender upon such transfer was similar to the one involved in the action of the Mutual Life Insurance Company against this same defendant, in which case it was held that the defendant was liable under the rule which imposes a liability upon the principal for the unauthorized acts of his agent; that Allen, who issued the certificate, was at the time secretary, treasurer, and transfer agent of the defendant, and invested with authority to sign, countersign, and seal valid certificates of stock, and, when he issued the certificate in question, was acting within the scope of his apparent authority; and that the issuance of the certificates in due form was a representation by him that all the conditions had been complied with, and the facts existed upon which his right to act depended. 26 N. Y. Supp. 545. It follows, therefore, that the exceptions should be overruled, and judgment ordered upon the verdict for the plaintiffs, with costs. All concur.

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

VAN BRUNT, P. J.

This action was brought to recover damages for refusal of the defendant to transfer certain stock. The certificate which the plaintiff offered to surrender upon such transfer was similar to the one involved in the action of the Mutual Life Insurance Company against this same defendant, in which case it was held that the defendant was liable under the rule which imposes a liability upon the principal for the unauthorized acts of his agent; that Allen, who issued the certificate, was at the time secretary, treasurer, and transfer agent of the defendant, and invested with authority to sign, countersign, and seal valid certificates of stock, and, when he issued the certificate in question, was acting within the scope of his apparent authority; and that the issuance of the certificates in due form was a representation by him that all the conditions had been complied with, and the facts existed upon which his right to act depended. 26 N. Y. Supp. 545. It follows, therefore, that the exceptions should be overruled, and judgment ordered upon the verdict for the plaintiffs, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 N.Y.S. 553, 81 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 529, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 223, 74 Hun 529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hellman-v-forty-second-street-grand-street-ferry-railroad-nysupct-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack