Case ID: nys_97/html/1146-14.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SCHLESINGER, Respondent, v. HAASE Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Tern
    March 2, 1906.)
    Appeal from City Court c New York, Special Term. Action by Leo Schle; inger, as receiver, against Lewis Haase. Froi a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeal;
    Reversed.
    Kantrowitz & Bsberg, for appellani
    Kneeland, LaFetra & Glaze, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We fail to see any just fication for the referee’s finding. Plaintiff services were rendered to and accepted by tb bank. They were peculiarly for the benefi of the bank and the board of directors express ly ratified the employment. The fact tha Rothschild, the president, personally advance the salary, is of no consequence, as it appear to have been expressly understood that he wa to be reimbursed by the bank. As there i o contradictory proof, the judgment should e reversed, and judgment for the defendant, ■ith costs.