Case ID: misc_46/html/0125-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MacLean, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Leopold Harris, Respondent, v. The Vienna Ice Cream Co., Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    December, 1904.)
    Proof necessary to recover against a corporation for professional services rendered to employees.
    To charge a corporation with the value of professional services rendered by a physician to its employees it must be shown that such services were rendered for the benefit of the corporation, or in satisfaction of a claim against it, or that the officers, at whose instance the services were rendered, had authority to bind the corporation in this respect.
    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, fifth district, borough of Manhattan.
    Schenkman & Brown, for appellant.
    Charles S. Rosenthal, for respondent.
   MacLean, J.

Judgment was rendered herein in favor of the plaintiff, a physician, for professional services rendered to two employees of the defendant, as alleged, “at the special request ” of the latter. Granting (also disputed) that the president and the secretary of the company requested the services; and on behalf of the company promised remuneration therefor, the record is without evidence to show that the services rendered were for its' benefit or in satisfaction of a claim, if any there might be, against it. “ Persons dealing with the officers of a corporation, or with persons assuming to represent it, are chargeable with notice of the purpose of its creation and its powers and with the authority, actual or apparent, of its officers or agents with whom they deal.” Wilson v. Kings County El. R. R. Co., 114 N. Y. 487, 491. The contract presently in suit may not be said to fall within the purpose of the creation of the Vienna Ice Cream Company, nor does • the evidence dis-. dose corporate benefit, or authority actual or apparent, in its president or secretary to obligate it in the particular instance. Kipp v. East River El. Light Co., 46 N. Y. St. Repr. 391. Individually liable they might be, but not the corporation whose officers they may be. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Freedman, P. J., and Gildersleeve, J., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.