Schaefer v. Sherwood

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Schaefer v. Sherwood

61 Misc. 642, 113 N.Y.S. 1068

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 15, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 61 Misc. 642 (Schaefer v. Sherwood) 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

Schaefer v. Sherwood, 61 Misc. 642, 113 N.Y.S. 1068 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Bischoff, J.

So far as the plaintiff’s recovery in the court below is assailed upon this appeal, it relates to money paid, laid out and expended for the defendant in and about the care of the latter’s tenements. Concededly the plaintiff had been employed as the defendant’s agent, but because the payments were not actually made before the agency was revoked it is claimed that they were voluntary. It sufficiently appears, however, from the testimony taken upon the trial that the payments made were for repairs contracted for by the plaintiff, pending his agency, and upon his personal credit. That under such circumstances the defendant may be answerable for the value of the repairs, as an undisclosed principal, does not absolve the plaintiff from personal .liability to those with whom he contracted. It was his right, therefore, to secure his release by payment and to look to the defendant for reimbursement. In no proper sense are the payments to be regarded as voluntary.

Gildersleeve and Guy, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Bischoff, J.

So far as the plaintiff’s recovery in the court below is assailed upon this appeal, it relates to money paid, laid out and expended for the defendant in and about the care of the latter’s tenements. Concededly the plaintiff had been employed as the defendant’s agent, but because the payments were not actually made before the agency was revoked it is claimed that they were voluntary. It sufficiently appears, however, from the testimony taken upon the trial that the payments made were for repairs contracted for by the plaintiff, pending his agency, and upon his personal credit. That under such circumstances the defendant may be answerable for the value of the repairs, as an undisclosed principal, does not absolve the plaintiff from personal .liability to those with whom he contracted. It was his right, therefore, to secure his release by payment and to look to the defendant for reimbursement. In no proper sense are the payments to be regarded as voluntary.

Gildersleeve and Guy, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 Misc. 642, 113 N.Y.S. 1068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schaefer-v-sherwood-nyappterm-1909.