Case ID: nys_44/html/1130-06.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "VAN WYCK, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THOMPSON, Appellant, v. CHILD, Respondent.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    February 23, 1897.)
    Action by J. Walter Thompson against Henry E. Child.
    H. C. Bryan, for appellant.
    Duncan Edwards, for respondent.
   VAN WYCK, C. J.

The action is for the price of defendant’s advertisements inserted by plaintiff in Life, and the only exception in the case is by plaintiff to the refusal of his request to direct a verdict for him. The defense, by allegation and proof, was that the advertisements had been published in Life by one Hanlenbeek, as principal, under an order given to Mm by defendant, and that Hanlenbeek had paid to the Life Company for the same $480, and had submitted bills for same, receipted by the Life Company, to defendant. Plaintiff’s contention was that this order was received by Hanlenbeclc as his agent. It appears that Hanlenbeck had for several years received orders for such publications from defendant, and then turned them over to plaintiff, who had had them so published in Life; giving to Hallenbeck one-third of the sums so paid by defendant^ as his part of the profit. Defendant’s contention was that these orders were given to Hanlenbeek as principal; had been paid for by Mm, and the receipted bills presented to defendant, and payment thereof demanded of him by Hanlenbeek. The proof certainly raised the only question which was litigated at trial,— that is, whether the orders were given to and received by Hanlenbeek as principal, or as plaintiff’s agent,—and justified the jury’s finding that defendant was liable to Hanlenbeek, and not to plaintiff, for the claim. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.