Case Name: HAGER v. HENNEBERGER et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-12-30
Citations: 145 N.Y.S. 152
Docket Number: 
Parties: HAGER v. HENNEBERGER et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 145
Pages: 152–156

Head Matter:
(83 Misc. Rep. 417)
HAGER v. HENNEBERGER et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department. .
December 30, 1913.)
1. Frauds, Statute of (§ 102*)—Sales—Authority of Agent. A contract of sale of goods is not invalid under the statute of frauds (Daws 1911, c. 571), providing that a contract of sale of goods of the value of $50 or upwards shall not be enforceable unless some- memorandum thereof .be signed by the party to. be "charged or “his agent in that behalf,” merely because the buyer’s agent signs the memorandum only with' his own name; the words quoted not limiting the agent, who can bind the principal to one who,-.with authority froni the principal, signs the principal’s name. :
[Ed. Note.—For other, cases) see Frauds, Statute of, Cent. Dig. § 191; Dec. Dig. § 102.*]
2. Principal and Agent (§ 145*)—Authority of Agent—Sales. • That a buyer’s agent signs'the memorandum of the contract of sale merely with his own name does not render the contract unenforceable against his principal, where the agent has apparent authority .to bind the principal and the principal’s relation to the transaction is understood by the seller. ' -
[Ed. Note.—Ifor other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent." Dig. §§ 499, 513-520; Dec. Dig. § 145.*] '
3. Principal and Agent (§ 123*)—Authority of Agent—Sufficiency, of Evidence. .... Evidence, in an action for damages for a buyer’s breach of a contract made by his agent for the sale of eggs, held to sustain a finding that the contract was .made by his agent for his benefit with his apparent authority, though the agent failed to turn over to him the ticket of sale.'
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Gent. Dig. §§ 420-429; Dec. Dig. § 123.*]-
Lehman, J., dissenting. . . '
.' Appeal from-Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First Department-. - - ■ • .......
"Action by -Clarence H.. Hager against William H. Hennebérger and another.-’ From a jtidgment for plaintiff upon a trial without a jury, 'defendants áppeál. Affirmed.
- Argued' November term, 1913, before LEHMAN, PAGE, and WHITAKER, J'J. ' '
Hieromimus A. Herold, of-New York City, for appellants.
Frederick M. Harris, of New York City, for respondent.

Opinion:
PAGE, J.
This action was.-brought to recover damages for the breach o'f a contract of salé. .The facts are: That the,plaintiff was the employé of a commission house dealing in'eggs, butter, etc. Edgar S. Phelps was an employé of the defendants# likewise commission merchants. Both were members of the Mercantile -Exchange. The plaintiff sold-to Phelps 100 cases of "fresh.gathered first eggs." A memorandum was signed of which the following is a copy:
"February 10, 1913.
"C. H. Hager sells E. B. Phelps- one hundred (100) cases of F. G. firsts,, delivered within 26 days, at 21 cents per. dozen: [Signed] O. H. Hager.
"E. B. Phelps."
The plaintiff and Phelps both testified that this purchase was made on account of the defendant, and testimony was introduced to show that it was the usual custom to make the memorandum in the name of the individual with whom the deal was made, rather than in the name of the firm that he represented. Sufficient evidence was given as to a course of dealing on Phelps' part, both with the plaintiff and others, to establish his authority in this manner to bind the defendants. The defendant maintains that this was a gambling transaction between the two employés, and that had Phelps made a profit they would have never heard of the transaction, but when a loss resulted Phelps sought to saddle them with it.
However plausible this may seem, there is no evidence to sustain such an inference. Phelps testifies: That he had sold 100 cases of eggs to be delivered in 30 days at 22 cents per dozen to one Augenblick, and that he was criticised by defendants, and that he made this transaction to cover that transaction. That subsequently eggs advanced to 24 cents, but later declined, and that one of the defendants stated to Phelps that he should cover the Augenblick sale. That Phelps then informed him that he had already done so and then informed him of the above transaction. That the defendants refused < to acknowledge this transaction and purchased the eggs at about 17 cents per dozen and made the delivery to Augenblick. Subsequently, when plaintiff inquired of the defendants whether they were willing to accept the eggs, they stated that they would not- under any circumstances accept them. Thereupon they were tendered to Phelps, and, on his refusal, a sale of the eggs - was made, and this action brought to recover the difference between the contract price and the sale price.
The appellant contends that this action cannot be maintained because of a change in the statute of frauds as enacted in chapter 571, Laws 1911:
"A contract to sell or a sale of any goods of the value of fifty dollars or upwards shall not be enforceable by action unless some note or memorandum in writing of the contract or sale be signed by the party to be charged or his agent in that behalf."
The learned counsel argues that the change from "his lawful agent" in the old law to "his agent in that behalf" - has limited the agent who can bind the principal to one who signs the principal's name and is authorized to sign his name.
I think the restriction of authority is to one authorized to act in the transaction and thus approaches more nearly the language of <the original statute "their agents thereunto lawfully authorized." Dykers v. Townsend, 24 N. Y. 57, is still good law.
It is undisputed that Phelps made the contract with the plaintiff in his own name for the defendants as disclosed principals and that the plaintiff so understood the transaction. Therefore, whether the custom of the exchange to make contracts in the names ,of individuals was proven or not, the defendants are liable upon this agreement if Phelps had apparent authority to bind them.
The real question to be determined, therefore, is whether Phelps had been held out by the defendants' to have such authority that the plaintiff was entitled to rely upon his contracts in their behalf. The finding of such authority by the learned trial justice is well supported by evidence of other transactions in which Phelps acted for the defendant and of which plaintiff had notice, and by the admissions of one of the defendants before a committee of the exchange that Phelps sometimes bought and sold for the defendant's firm without specific instructions using his own judgment. The defendant Henneberger also admitted upon the stand that he had censured Phelps for selling-eggs to Augenblick at 22 cents, and that later when eggs went down to 17 cents he told Phelps he would cover the sale to Augenblick, and that, when Phelps then informed him that he had already covered it by the purchase from the plaintiff at 21 cents, Henneberger said he would not take the eggs from the plaintiff at 21 cents. In speaking of this transaction before the committee of the exchange, Henneberger also admitted that he would have accepted the transaction of the plaintiff if Phelps had turned in the ticket of sale at the proper time. I think that this evidence shows clearly that the defendant merely repudiated the transaction because of the fall in the market and because he could buy eggs at 17 cents instead of 21 cents. It was clearly made for his benefit and by his agent with apparent, if not actual, authority. The plaintiff was not responsible for Phelps' failure to turn in the ticket. I can see no reason for reversing the conclusion of the trial court.
Judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
WHITAKER, J., concurs.