Case Name: Corn Exchange Bank, Resp't, v. American Dock and Trust Company, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-05
Citations: 60 N.Y. St. Rep. 68
Docket Number: 
Parties: Corn Exchange Bank, Resp’t, v. American Dock and Trust Company, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 60
Pages: 68–73

Head Matter:
Corn Exchange Bank, Resp’t, v. American Dock and Trust Company, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed May, 1894.)
1. Estoppel—Corporation.
In an action upon warehouse receipts, issued by the president of a corporation in his own favor, the corporation is estopped from disputing the validity of the receipts only by conduct on the part of its officers broad enough to amount to an assurance that, the receipts are those of the corporation.
8. Appeal—Charos.
The question whether the corporation had assented to its president’s assumption of authority to make certificates acknowledging storage of cotton on his own account, was held to have been fairly presented to the jury.
3. Same—Error cured.
An error in the main charge is cured by a subsequent accurate instruction at the appellant’s request.
Appeal from judgment entered on verdict, and from order denying a motion for new trial.
Tkaddeus D. Kenneson, for app’lt; John M. Bowers, for resp’t.

Opinion:
O'Brien, J.
I concur with Mr. Justice Parker, and for the reasons given by him, that under the evidence the plaintiff was entitled to go to the jury on the question, " Whether defendant had assented to its president's assumption of authority to make certificates acknowledging storage of cotton on his account.'' If this question was fairly presented, the verdict of the jury should not be disturbed, and the question is whether it was so presented or not.
I also agree with Mr. Justice Parker in his view that it was not a correct statement of the law to charge that " the plaintiff .can only recover in this action if you shall find from the evidence in this case that Mr. Jewell told Mr. Mead that Mr. Stone had 194 bales of cotton there. And it recovers then because the defendant will be estopped from denying the truth of the statement." The error into which the court fell in thus stating the law in its main charge seems to have been entirely cured when, after his attention was called to the statement, and at the request of the defendant, the judge correctly stated the law to be, "that the defendant cannot bo estopped from denying the genuineness of the alleged warehouse receipts unless they find that Mr. Jewell represented to Mr. Mead that the defendant had at the time of the inquiry the cotton mentioned in the alleged warehouse receipts, and that that cotton belonged to Stone, and that such representation was made with knowledge that the bank was making the inquiry for the purpose of acting or relying upon it." I think that by this instruction, which was full and clear, the prior inaccurate statement in the charge was cured.
It is true that in a subsequent discussion between counsel for the defendant and the court some obscurity may have resulted from the colloquy between them ; but if there did, counsel has only himself to blame; because, after the original charge containing the inaccuracy was finished, and having called the attention of the court specifically to it by a request which was full and accurate, he should have been content to allow that branch of the case to rest in that condition. He saw fit, however, to except to the very portion of the charge which was thus cured by his own request; and for the confusion which may have been thus created, I do not think he is entitled to be rewarded by having the judgment on this ground alone reversed.
I think, therefore, that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Van Brunt, P. J., concurs.