Stuart v. Staten Island Clay Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Stuart v. Staten Island Clay Co.

47 A. 805, 65 N.J.L. 546, 36 Vroom 546, 1900 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 2

DecidedDecember 29, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A. 805 (Stuart v. Staten Island Clay Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stuart v. Staten Island Clay Co., 47 A. 805, 65 N.J.L. 546, 36 Vroom 546, 1900 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 2 (N.J. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover moneys claimed to be due to him from the defendant upon a certain contract, made by plaintiff with the general manager of the defendant company, for the construction of certain “crab rack cars.” The case was tried by the court, without a jury, and resulted in a finding in favor of the plaintiff for the contract price of the “cars.”

The defendant now seeks to set aside the finding, upon the ground that the making of the contract was not within the scope of the powers of its general manager.

The proofs show otherwise. Even if it be conceded, as argued by counsel of the defendant, that the position of general manager of a corj)oration does not carry with it the power to make such a contract as that now sued upon, it cannot benefit the defendant, for it plainly appears from the proofs that this particular contract was made by its general [547]*547manager in pursuance of specific instructions received by him from its vice president, and also from its managing director, each of whom had full power to confer upon him authority to make the contract.

The rule to show cause should be discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover moneys claimed to be due to him from the defendant upon a certain contract, made by plaintiff with the general manager of the defendant company, for the construction of certain “crab rack cars.” The case was tried by the court, without a jury, and resulted in a finding in favor of the plaintiff for the contract price of the “cars.”

The defendant now seeks to set aside the finding, upon the ground that the making of the contract was not within the scope of the powers of its general manager.

The proofs show otherwise. Even if it be conceded, as argued by counsel of the defendant, that the position of general manager of a corj)oration does not carry with it the power to make such a contract as that now sued upon, it cannot benefit the defendant, for it plainly appears from the proofs that this particular contract was made by its general [547]*547manager in pursuance of specific instructions received by him from its vice president, and also from its managing director, each of whom had full power to confer upon him authority to make the contract.

The rule to show cause should be discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A. 805, 65 N.J.L. 546, 36 Vroom 546, 1900 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stuart-v-staten-island-clay-co-nj-1900.