Valente v. International Milling Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valente v. International Milling Co.

119 A.D. 127, 103 N.Y.S. 966, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3883

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 26, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D. 127 (Valente v. International Milling Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Valente v. International Milling Co., 119 A.D. 127, 103 N.Y.S. 966, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

The plaintiff sues the defendant corporation for salary, claiming under a contract with it. The trial court excluded the contract because it was not the contract of the corporation. It was signed by the president and the vice-president of defendant, although not in their representative capacity. In the body of the instrument it was, however, recited .that they were acting in the capacity of the ■ president and vice-president of the defendant, and that their act in entering into the contract was “on the exclusive account” of the defendant, which act they had been legally authorized to perform. The contract should have been received in evidence. ' The aereement was a simple contract and did' not require the corporate seal.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Hirsohberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Hooker and Gaynor, " JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam :

The plaintiff sues the defendant corporation for salary, claiming under a contract with it. The trial court excluded the contract because it was not the contract of the corporation. It was signed by the president and the vice-president of defendant, although not in their representative capacity. In the body of the instrument it was, however, recited .that they were acting in the capacity of the ■ president and vice-president of the defendant, and that their act in entering into the contract was “on the exclusive account” of the defendant, which act they had been legally authorized to perform. The contract should have been received in evidence. ' The aereement was a simple contract and did' not require the corporate seal.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Hirsohberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Hooker and Gaynor, " JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D. 127, 103 N.Y.S. 966, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valente-v-international-milling-co-nyappdiv-1907.