Case ID: nys_64/html/1110-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PEE CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McLAUGHLIN et al. v. RANGER et al.
    (City Court of New York,
    General Term.
    May 28, 1900.)
    Appeal—Weight op Evidence—Conclusivbness op Verdict.
    Where, to entitle them to recover, the burden was on plaintiffs to prove agency, and all the positive evidence tended to show no agency existed, while plaintiffs’ evidence was circumstantial, and entitled to little weight, and such strained and disrupted social relations were shown between defendants and their alleged agents as to justify a belief that no agency existed, a verdict for the defendants will not be disturbed.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by Arthur W. McLaughlin and others against Francis L. Ranger and others. From a judgment in favor of the defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before FITZSIMONS, C. J., and SCHUCHMAN, J.
    
      Alex Thain, for appellants.
    Charles C. Leeds, for respondents.
   PEE CURIAM.

The burden rested upon plaintiffs to prove by a fair preponderance of evidence that I. Henry Ranger was the duly-authorized agent of these defendants concerning the transactions'in question. That question of fact, which was in dispute, in our opinion was clearly and fairly presented to the jury, and they found in favor of defendants. Their verdict,, we are convinced after carefully reading the appeal record, was just and reasonable, and should not be disturbed. All of the positive evidence proved that he was not their agent. Plaintiffs’ evidence upon that question was merely circumstantial, very weak, and evidently entitled to little weight. Weak as it was, we think it was entirely discredited by the defendants’ testimony, showing that the social relations existing between the alleged agent and these defendants were so strained and disrupted as to justify any reasonable person in concluding that they would hardly have selected him as their agent in a business transaction like the one in question.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.