Case Name: JACK WECHSLER AND TOBIAS GOLD, PARTNERS, TRADING AS NEW YORK WINDOW SHADE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS, v. FRANK R. CLARKE, APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1929-07-05
Citations: 7 N.J. Misc. 627
Docket Number: 
Parties: JACK WECHSLER AND TOBIAS GOLD, PARTNERS, TRADING AS NEW YORK WINDOW SHADE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS, v. FRANK R. CLARKE, APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 627–628

Head Matter:
JACK WECHSLER AND TOBIAS GOLD, PARTNERS, TRADING AS NEW YORK WINDOW SHADE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS, v. FRANK R. CLARKE, APPELLANT.
Submitted May 8, 1929
Decided July 5, 1929.
Before Justices Parker, Black and Bokuste.
For the appellant, Levy, Fenster <& McQloskey.
For the respondents, Frank Masini.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Judgment in this case was entered on a hook account. On August 10th, 1927, Jack Weehsler received a phone order to place window shades in an apartment house at Ellis and Springfield avenues, Irvington, New Jersey. He went to the office of Eichard H. Thiele, Esquire, an attorney-at-law, and was told by Mr. Thiele 'to take the measurements and deliver the shades to the apartment house and to charge them to the Ellis Eealty Company.
The court found that the defendant, Frank E. Clarke, was liable for the shades as Mr. Thiele had purchased them as agent for him.
The sole question in this case is whether there was competent legal proof that Eichard H. Thiele was agent for Frank E. Clarke when he ordered the shades for the apartment house, in which Clarke had an interest.
The only testimony touching the matter was the testimony of Thiele and his declarations. Agency may not be proved by declarations of the agent. Further, Thiele merely testified that he was Clarke's attorney. An attorney-at-law has no implied authority to buy window shades.
The case must be reversed.