Case ID: nys_47/html/1142-08.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CONLAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MEINERS, Respondent, v. MERRIAM CO. et al., Appellants.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    October 26, 1897.)
    Action by Gustav Meiners against the Merriam Company, the Wood & Parker Lithographic Company, and Robert H. Merriam.
    George W. De Lano, for appellants.
    Rabe & Keller, for respondent.
   CONLAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered by a direction of the court, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The action was brought to recover the balance due on a promissory note made by the Merriam Company to the order of the Wood & Parker Company, and indorsed by Robert H. Merriam, before delivery, to the Wood & Parker Company. At the close of the trial the attorneys for the defendants moved for a direction in favor of the defendants on the sole ground “that the plaintiff, by placing the promissory note in suit in custody of the Wood & Parker Company and their attorneys, gave them ostensible authority to make the settlement which it was not disputed was made, and therefore we are entitled to a verdict.” The attorneys for the plaintiff moved for a direction in favor of the plaintiff. By these requests the whole matter in controversy was narrowed to the question of settlement, as litigated on the trial. The effect of these two requests was to submit all questions of fact to the court, and as there appears to have been some conflicting testimony as to what actually took place, as well as the authority of Parker to bind the defendants, we think the judgment should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.