King v. Minnerly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

King v. Minnerly

156 A.D. 918, 141 N.Y.S. 1126

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 156 A.D. 918 (King v. Minnerly) 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

King v. Minnerly, 156 A.D. 918, 141 N.Y.S. 1126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed, and the motion to dismiss the complaint, made at the close of the entire case, granted, and judgment directed in favor of defendant accordingly, with costs and disbursements in this court and in the court below, upon the ground that if the evidence warranted a finding by the jury that Peterson acted as the agent of defendant in the purchase of goods, he wasinot the agent of an undisclosed principal, but such' principal was known 'to plaintiff’s assignor at the time the goods were purchased and he chose-thereafter to make a contract with the agent directly, and to hold him solely responsible therefor, when he filed the notice of mechanic’s lien. He must be deemed, therefore, to have waived any right to proceed against the principal. (Matter of Bateman, 7 Misc. Rep. 633; affd., 145 N. Y. 623; Tuthill v. Wilson, 90 id. 423.) Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas and Rich, JJ., concurred; Hirsehberg, J., dissented.

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

Judgment and order reversed, and the motion to dismiss the complaint, made at the close of the entire case, granted, and judgment directed in favor of defendant accordingly, with costs and disbursements in this court and in the court below, upon the ground that if the evidence warranted a finding by the jury that Peterson acted as the agent of defendant in the purchase of goods, he wasinot the agent of an undisclosed principal, but such' principal was known 'to plaintiff’s assignor at the time the goods were purchased and he chose-thereafter to make a contract with the agent directly, and to hold him solely responsible therefor, when he filed the notice of mechanic’s lien. He must be deemed, therefore, to have waived any right to proceed against the principal. (Matter of Bateman, 7 Misc. Rep. 633; affd., 145 N. Y. 623; Tuthill v. Wilson, 90 id. 423.) Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas and Rich, JJ., concurred; Hirsehberg, J., dissented.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D. 918, 141 N.Y.S. 1126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-minnerly-nyappdiv-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack