Case ID: ny-st-rep_32/html/0084-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Barnard, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George H. Deller, Resp’t, v. The Staten Island Athletic Club, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department
    
    
      Filed May 12, 1890.)
    
    Corporations — Liability on contracts op its officers.
    Defendant leased its club house and personal property, for a fixed rent, to plaintiff, who agreed to maintain a restaurant for the exclusive use of the members and their guests, subject to the approval of the house comr mittee. Meld, that plaintiff could recover for money expended and refreshments furnished to defendant’s ball nine and a competing club, at the request of members of the house committee.
    Appeal from judgment of county court in favor of plaintiff for $358.63 damages and costs, and from order denying motion ■ for a new trial.
    
      George M. Machellar, for app’lt; W. J. Powers, for resp’t.
   Barnard, P. J.

The defendant hired its club house to the plaintiff for a fixed rent. The personal property in the house was included in the lease. The plaintiff was bound to maintain a restaurant for the exclusive use of the members, and guests of such members, to be open at such time as may be designated by its house committee. The prices for the food furnished, and its quality, was to be subject to the approval of this committee. The agreement was in writing, and was executed by the officers of the club, under a resolution authorizing the same made by the board of management.

By article 4 of the by-laws, the board of management were authorized to make all contracts and purchases, and to make all needed regulations for the success of the club. There is, therefore, no conflict between the agreement with the plaintiff and the power of the manager to make the same. The manager could act through the house committee so far as respects the management of the club house. The proof then shows that the plaintiff expended money at the request of the house committee, for cots, expressage, expenses and house cleaning. He made an agreement with the same committee to supply the defendant’s base ball men with refreshments up to sixty cents per man on certain days.

He also supplied dinners to the Young America Base Ball Club of Philadelphia to the amount of $79.10 at the request of the chairman and another member of the house committee. The defendant produced evidence tending to deny all authority to give refreshments to either the defendant’s ball nine at the expense of the club or to the ball nine of Philadelphia. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff upon the issue of fact. There were undisputed items of plaintiff’s claim, besides the disputed items, and there was a counterclaim on the part of defendant as to which nothing is disclosed besides its amount. The charge of the judge was to the effect that if the disputed items were given and the defendant’s counterclaim was allowed, the verdict would be for the plaintiff for $92.11 and that was the verdict.

The judgment of the county court should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concur.