Case ID: ny_122/html/0636-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bradley J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary L. Day, Respondent, v. Joseph A. Jameson et al., Appellants.
    (Submitted June 18, 1890;
    decided October 7, 1890.)
    Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, entered upon an order made January 6,1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a Amrdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
    This was an action to recover a balance alleged to be due ■upon an account.
    The principal questions discussed were as to the right oi plaintiff’s husband to bind her by his own acts ostensibly a$ her agent, and as to whether certain transactions were authorized by her, as to which the verdict was held to be conclusive.
    A sentence in the charge was excepted to ; it was held there was no evidence warranting the submission of the question stated therein to the jury.
    
      Thadeus D. Kenneson and Henry A. Root for appellants.
    
      Daniel P. Hayes and Lucas L. Van Allen for respondent.
   Bradley J.,

reads for reversal and new trial, unless plaintifl •stipulates within twenty days to deduct $1,187.50 and interesi from August, 22,1882, from the judgment rendered, m whicl: case the judgment, as so modified, is affirmed.

All concur, except Folleít, Oh. J., who reads for affirmance and dissents.

Judgment accordingly.