McConnell v. Trade Paper Advertising Agency

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

McConnell v. Trade Paper Advertising Agency

87 N.Y.S. 1140

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 24, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 87 N.Y.S. 1140 (McConnell v. Trade Paper Advertising Agency) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McConnell v. Trade Paper Advertising Agency, 87 N.Y.S. 1140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, an assignee, sues for printing work done and labor performed by his assignors, the Mail & Express Job Print, a domestic corporation. The sole question in the case was whether one Wray, who contracted for the work to be done, was the agent of the defendant and authorized to order the work sued for. Upon this question there was a conflict of evidence. The testimony consists of 90 pages of typewritten matter, and We have read it carefully. We think there was direct, as well as inferential, evidence from which the court below was justified in resolving that question in favor of the .plaintiff. Some errors in the exclusion of testimony offered by the defendant appear in the record, but none that necessitate a reversal of the judgment. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, an assignee, sues for printing work done and labor performed by his assignors, the Mail & Express Job Print, a domestic corporation. The sole question in the case was whether one Wray, who contracted for the work to be done, was the agent of the defendant and authorized to order the work sued for. Upon this question there was a conflict of evidence. The testimony consists of 90 pages of typewritten matter, and We have read it carefully. We think there was direct, as well as inferential, evidence from which the court below was justified in resolving that question in favor of the .plaintiff. Some errors in the exclusion of testimony offered by the defendant appear in the record, but none that necessitate a reversal of the judgment. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 N.Y.S. 1140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcconnell-v-trade-paper-advertising-agency-nyappterm-1904.