Richard Taylor Co. v. Cannon

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Richard Taylor Co. v. Cannon

16 Misc. 679, 37 N.Y.S. 643

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 16 Misc. 679 (Richard Taylor Co. v. Cannon) 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

Richard Taylor Co. v. Cannon, 16 Misc. 679, 37 N.Y.S. 643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The action is for work and material furnished. The order was given to Richard Taylor about October, 18.94, when he owed the defendant $3 it for professional services, and the understanding had between them was that the value of the work and material was to be credited on this bill. 'The defendant did not know the plaintiff corporation, nor did he intend to contract with it, his purpose being to secure, payment of some part of his account. Taylor died during the performance of- the work, and .on his death the.work, though unfinished, Ceased. He. never disclosed any agency, nor had the defendant -any reason to suspect there was one.. •'

In view of the judgment rendered by the justice he must have found, as matter- of fact,. that Taylor did not contract in the ■capacity of agent, but as principal; and that if any of the labor or material came from the plaintiff corporation, the defendant was unaware of it at the time, and it must have been so furnished under ■some arrangement by which Taylor should pay the plaintiff for it. There are circumstances giving color to this theory. ■

Hpon the record the judgment must he affirmed, with costs.

.Present: MoAdam and Bischoee, JJ.

judgment affirmed, with- costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The action is for work and material furnished. The order was given to Richard Taylor about October, 18.94, when he owed the defendant $3 it for professional services, and the understanding had between them was that the value of the work and material was to be credited on this bill. 'The defendant did not know the plaintiff corporation, nor did he intend to contract with it, his purpose being to secure, payment of some part of his account. Taylor died during the performance of- the work, and .on his death the.work, though unfinished, Ceased. He. never disclosed any agency, nor had the defendant -any reason to suspect there was one.. •'

In view of the judgment rendered by the justice he must have found, as matter- of fact,. that Taylor did not contract in the ■capacity of agent, but as principal; and that if any of the labor or material came from the plaintiff corporation, the defendant was unaware of it at the time, and it must have been so furnished under ■some arrangement by which Taylor should pay the plaintiff for it. There are circumstances giving color to this theory. ■

Hpon the record the judgment must he affirmed, with costs.

.Present: MoAdam and Bischoee, JJ.

judgment affirmed, with- costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Misc. 679, 37 N.Y.S. 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-taylor-co-v-cannon-nyappterm-1896.