Wilmington daily commercial., 1875-06-03
"
Reported for The Commercial.

The Court opened this morning, at 10 o'clock,
Judges Gllpin, Wooten and Houston on the
bench.
The case of McCauley vs.. Jenny was resumed
and by 1l.30 all the Testimony was in Counsel
on both sides then proceeded to argue the case,
after which Chief Justice Gilpin delivered his
charge substantiallyas follows =
Gentlemen Of ute Jluy-The action which you
are empanneled to try il called an action of
covenant and is instituted by tho plaintiff, Rob-
ert McCauley, to recover damages on account of
certain breaches OF an agreement which the
defendant, Nicholas Jenny, had entered into,
which is evidenced under the hands and seals of
the parties to that agreement. McCanley is a
pasterer and brings suit TO recover for material
furnished and labor performed on q certain
building known the Schut2en Park. The
terms Of the contract have been read to you, and
you will have observed that Mr.. Jenney entered
into this agreement describing himself as Presi-
dent of the Wilmington Rifle Club, and wherever
his name appears it ID as President. You will
also observe that the building itself s described
as that of the Rifle Clubs. The learned coun-
sci for the plaintiff insists that by this paper, al
though Jenney is 10 described that he personal
ly individually and not officially, entered into
the contract, and that he therefore is RESPONSE
BILE for the work dono.
A party may bind himself and become respon-
sible under his covenant for the payment OF the
debt Of q Co., il such was the intent OF the in
strument signed by him. In the inception of
this case, was not aware that there were any
pleas other than non est fdctun. Ii nothing else
appeared, jenny would be responsible, but he
afterward further pleaded that he In signing it,
did it as the President of the Rifle Club. The
plea is somewhat informal, and the plaintiff +
counsel could have demurred. But he took is-
sue and went to the jury. That plea, though
informal is substantially good one, and gives
tho defense an opportunity to show the circum-
stances under which the paper was executed.
That he executed it as President and under the
authority of the Rifle Club. That is the reason
upon which the defendant can show whether
Jenny did this upon his own own responsibility
or not and whenever such plea is put in it ii
incumbent to show that he WAS authorized. In
this case he shows it by resolution of the club
to have this work done.
There is also evidence that Jenny WAS author-
lied to make the contract between McCauley
and the Rifle Club. So too. you have the furti-
that the plaintiff presented his bill to the
Rifle Club for this work. This ID
| testimony which you are to CON
| slider a. bearing upon the understanding
whether or not ths defendant entered into the
contract by the authority of the Rifle Club. The
| learned counsel for the plaintiff objected to its
introduction upon the assumption that II was al
| attempt to vary the character of the writing. 1t
was admitted because it went to show the rela-
| ton of the parties and remove the embarrans-
| ment before the jury and TO show the meaning
of the parties to 1t. If nothing had been said OF
Jenny as President we would not hesitate tc
| charge against it, Now it is said that you must
treat it aa his covenant because it does not, in
law, constitute covenant on the part OF
| the Rifle Club. 1t IN true that il
| does not as a covenant bind the Rlile club for
| the reason that it, being corporation, can only
| make covenant under it's corporate seal
Nevertheless, il work is done for a corporation
there ID an action against 1t which wonld be only
| a change in ts case from covenant to assump
| sit. This binds the company and they arc bound
| to pay.
| Now the rule of law is tlis-that where a paper
| is made on behalf of corporation. with ite
authority and appreciation, the party making 1t il
its agent. and the corporation must be held liable
This IL well settled law, and there il
| reason for it, because corporations mus
| act by agents. Something has beei
| said in regard to the act OF Incorporation in thit
case. The plaintiffs counsel says that tine worl
was done before this charter was recorded. Thit
he held as an objection, and if he meant any
thing it was that there was at that time no cor
poration. We say that the Act was good at the
time it was passed for one year. 1t was passeC
February 18th 1871, and recorded Dec. 10th Of
| the same year. Therefore it was valid from the
| time of its passage and the objection Of counse
on this poirt amounts to nothing.
What is the question for the jury to dispose
of The way you will view it will be whether thit
defendant is liable or not. In executing that con
tract did this party do it on his own responsblit,
the other hand did he do it OH behalf of the
| Wilmington Rifle Club? To determine that yoi
| must say whether You believe the testimony.
| you are not satisfied with the evidence OH th
| point you must conclude that he did it on hi
| own responsibility. He says he did not. Do yol
believe him ? If you believe that he was an
thorized, if lie did it under instructions, we sa,
he was not responsible. These facts are beforl
| you and as you deal with them you will make N
| your verdict.
At the conclusion of the Judge's charge tn
| jury retired and returned III few minutes Will
a verdict for the defendant.
| Court then adjourned until O. ?. NJ.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
When Court re-assembled the case OF Joh
| E. Creth Vs. Elwood IL. Norney was taken VI
| This was an action of assumpsit on promissor
| note drawn by Norney to his own order. w.
| Spruance, Esq, for plaintiff. and J. ii. Rodney
| ESQ.,, for defendant. Witnesses being abser
on the part of the defense no evidence was sut
mitted. Jury gave verdict for plaintiff fo
| S77.47 and COSTS,
The next case called was Geo. Miller & Son.
VS.. Gottlieb Rehfuss' administrative was take
up In this case there was no testimony take
and Judgment was given for plaintiff for .277 q
| and costs.
The next case called was Samuel Ball & Son
ys, &. Rehfuss administrators. Verdict fC
for plaintiff in both proceeding cases, and VIZ
tor DUPONT, Esq, for defendants.
The case Of Kent county II. II. Co. Va. Wn
Wilson was then called and jury empanellet
Massey and Gray for plaintiff G.. B. and j. l.
Rodney for defendant.
At this point court adjourned until ~ o'cloc
tomorrow monrnng.
|
| The CIaytOn Ilouse