Keller v. Haug

96 N.Y.S. 1058
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided December 21, 1905·Published

Opinion

MacLEAN, J.

Being sued on an account stated, and the account and promise to pay by the husband of the defendant being proven, the defendant may not escape liability; for it appears that she was the owner of the business where work was done and materials furnished and that her husband was manager of the place. “To allow an undisclosed principal to absorb the profits, and then, when the pinch comes, to escape responsibility” for a business so conducted, offers too large an opportunity for fraud. Hubbard v. Tenbrook, 124 Pa. 291, 296, 16 Atl. 817, 2 L. R. A. 823, 10 Am. St. Rep. 585 ; Watteau v. Fenwick, 1 Q. B. 346.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Keller v. Haug, 96 N.Y.S. 1058 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

96 N.Y.S. 1058 (Keller v. Haug) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Geo. K. Hubbard & Co. v. Tenbrook & Bro
16 A. 817 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1889)