Tarpy v. Bernheimer

16 N.Y.S. 870, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 184, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 646
CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas
DecidedJanuary 4, 1892
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 N.Y.S. 870 (Tarpy v. Bernheimer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tarpy v. Bernheimer, 16 N.Y.S. 870, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 184, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 646 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover for inserting an advertisement of the defendants’ business in plaintiff’s paper. There was no evidence that the plaintiff had any dealings directly with defendants. He-claims to have received the order from one John Franz, whom he. claimed was acting as agent for the defendants. The testimony shows conclusively that Franz was agent for the defendants only for the purpose of selling beer, collecting bills, and representing the defendants before the board of excise, and, in our judgment, this was not sufficient to warrant the court below in finding that Franz was the agent of the defendants for the purpose of contracting bills for advertising their business, especially in view of the fact that Mr. Bernheimer, the survivor of the firm, testified that Franz had no [871]*871such authority, and had never been authorized by him to contract bills for him or his firm. The plaintiff also attempted to show that the papers containing the advertisement were sent to the brewery owned by the defendants, but Mr. Bernheimer denies that he ever received such papers, or had his attention called to them, or ever received a bill for the advertising, until after the action was commenced. Under this state of facts, we think the judgment should be reversed, with costs.

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

Related

United States Bedding Co. v. Andes
150 S.W. 413 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1912)
Brooklyn Daily Eagle v. Bertin Dellmar, Ltd.
30 Misc. 747 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 N.Y.S. 870, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 184, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarpy-v-bernheimer-nyctcompl-1892.