Kind v. Barry

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kind v. Barry

66 Misc. 188, 121 N.Y.S. 324

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided February 15, 1910·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Whitney. 3.

Defendant with others gave a power of attorney to three persons named, as his attorneys in fact. Plaintiff has recovered judgment against him upon a contract made by one only of the three. Presumptively such an authority was a joint one (Story Agency, § 42; Mechem Agency, § 77 and cases cited; Hawley v. Keeler, 53 N. Y. 114, 121); and there is nothing in the power of attorney to indicate the contrary, but much that is confirmatory. For this reason as well as that stated in Kind v. Cortis, decided herewith (ante, p. 186), the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Seabury and Guy, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.'

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

Whitney. 3.

Defendant with others gave a power of attorney to three persons named, as his attorneys in fact. Plaintiff has recovered judgment against him upon a contract made by one only of the three. Presumptively such an authority was a joint one (Story Agency, § 42; Mechem Agency, § 77 and cases cited; Hawley v. Keeler, 53 N. Y. 114, 121); and there is nothing in the power of attorney to indicate the contrary, but much that is confirmatory. For this reason as well as that stated in Kind v. Cortis, decided herewith (ante, p. 186), the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Seabury and Guy, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.'

Kind v. Barry, 66 Misc. 188, 121 N.Y.S. 324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

66 Misc. 188 (Kind v. Barry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related