Case ID: misc_10/html/0496-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Conlan, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frederick W. Prior, Appellant, v. Henry M. Flagler, Respondent.
    (City Court of New York
    General Term,
    December, 1894.)
    Plaintiff was employed as chief cook in defendant’s hotel, the employment being concluded as to details by the defendant’s steward. Shortly afterwards plaintiff was severely injured and claims that the steward agreed that if he would resign his position he should be paid the salary for the remainder of the season. Held, that this was a new and independent contract, and not binding upon defendant without proof of the steward’s authority to make it.
    In the absence of proof of authority to make an agreement, evidence as to its terms is inadmissible.
    Appeal from a judgment entered upon the dismissal of a complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case.
    
      Dudley R. Horton, for appellant. ■
    
      Lemitt, Wood d¡ Keith, for respondent.
   Conlan, J.

The only question presented on this appeal is whether Tomlinson had authority to make the contract sued on. The plaintiff was employed as chief cook in defendant’s hotel for the season of 1892-1893.

The evidence shows that plaintiff’s employment originated with a Mr. Seavey, who was general manager of the hotel, and concluded as to details with one Tomlinson, who was acting in the capacity of steward.

The evidence shows that shortly after plaintiff’s employment he was injured so badly that he was unable to continue his duties as chief cook and was taken to a hospital, when, as plaintiff claims, an agreement was made with the steward Tomlinson that if plaintiff would resign this position the balance of his salary for the season would be paid him. This was an entirely new and independent contract, and to be binding on the defendant must be made by some person having authority to make it.

We do not think that authority in Tomlinson was shown, and it follows, therefore, that the evidence as to the terms of the agreement was properly excluded.

At the close of the plaintiff’s case the court offered to submit the questions of fact to the jury, which was declined by plaintiff’s counsel.

No errors of law appear in the case, and the complaint was properly dismissed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Van Wyck, J., concurs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.