McLaughlin v. Ranger

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

McLaughlin v. Ranger

32 Misc. 732, 66 N.Y.S. 450

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Misc. 732 (McLaughlin v. Ranger) 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

McLaughlin v. Ranger, 32 Misc. 732, 66 N.Y.S. 450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs insist that prejudicial error was committed upon the trial, in that certain irrelevant evidence was received which may have affected the verdict. It is unnecessary to pass upon this question, because the cause should not have been submitted to the jury at all. In order to maintain their action it was -necessary for the plaintiffs to show that J. Henry Ranger was authorized to act as the agent of the defendants for the purpose of negotiating the loan in respect to which the plaintiffs claim a commission. No competent evidence of such an agency was presented. Consequently the complaint should have been dismissed by the court.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs insist that prejudicial error was committed upon the trial, in that certain irrelevant evidence was received which may have affected the verdict. It is unnecessary to pass upon this question, because the cause should not have been submitted to the jury at all. In order to maintain their action it was -necessary for the plaintiffs to show that J. Henry Ranger was authorized to act as the agent of the defendants for the purpose of negotiating the loan in respect to which the plaintiffs claim a commission. No competent evidence of such an agency was presented. Consequently the complaint should have been dismissed by the court.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Misc. 732, 66 N.Y.S. 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclaughlin-v-ranger-nyappterm-1900.