Case ID: ny-sup-ct_16/html/0704-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Buady, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAM J. PECK, Survivor, etc., Respondent, v. JOHN M. GARDNER and JEROME B. WEIANT, Appellants.
    
      Oontraet — execution of , by agent — - “ A. J. L., agent for G-. é W.” — binds agent, not principal.
    
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee.
    The action was brought to recover damages for the breach of an alleged executory contract, by which the defendants agreed to sell and deliver certain brick to the plaintiff. Upon the trial a paper purporting to give the terms of the contract was produced, which was made “between Albert G. Lawson, agent of John M. Gardner, and Jerome Weiant, brick manufacturers of Haverstraw, Rockland county, State of New York, party of the first part, and the firm of William J. & J. S. Peck, of the city of New York,” and executed as follows:
    “ ALBERT J. LAWSON, [l. s.]
    “Agent for Gardner & Weiant.
    “ WM. J. & J. S. PECK.” [l. b.]
    ■ The defendants’ counsel objected to the reception of this paper in evidence, on the ground that it was not properly executed to charge the principal. The court admitted the evidence, and the judge, in his charge to the jury authorized them to determine whether it was executed in such a way as to entitle it to be read in evidence, and said that if so executed, then it would be necessary to decide whether Lawson was authorized to sign it.
    With reference to this, the court at General Term said: “ There was no dispute about the manner of the execution. It was patent on the face of the paper. This was about the extent of Lawson’s authority, doubtless. The submission of the question stated to the jury was erroneous. It was not for them, but for the court to determine it, and the adjudications on the subject establish the proposition that an agreement executed as that was, becomes that of the agent, and is not that of the principal. (Townsend v. Corning, 23 Wend., 435; Spencer v. Field, 10 id., 88; Stone v. Wood, 7 Cow., 454; Bogwrt v. De Bussey, 6 J ohns., 94; Sherman v. N. Y. C. B. B. Co., 22 Barb., 239; De Witt v. Walton, 5 Seld., 571.)”
    
      C. P. Hoffman for the appellants. J. S. Lawrence for the respondent.
   Opinion by

Buady, J.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., agreed in the result.

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