Case Name: Title Guarantee and Trust Company, Respondent, v. Abraham Levitt, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-10-04
Citations: 121 A.D. 485
Docket Number: 
Parties: Title Guarantee and Trust Company, Respondent, v. Abraham Levitt, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 485–486

Head Matter:
Title Guarantee and Trust Company, Respondent, v. Abraham Levitt, Appellant.
Second Department,
October 4, 1907.
Principal and agent—attorney’s clerk — disclosure of principal.
When an attorney’s clerk, in making application for a loan, discloses the fact that lie acts only as representing another firm of attorneys whom he named, but the loan company insists that he sign his employer’s name to an agreement to pay the cost of searching the title, there can be no recovery against the clerk on the theory that he signed his employer’s name without authority.
Appeal by the defendant, "Abraham. Levitt, from á judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York in favor of the plain- • tiff, rendered after a trial before the court without a jury.
The action was to recover for services in searching a title for a loan. The defendant was a law student in the office of Reuben Stone, an attorney at law. He made application to the representative of the plaintiff for a loan to Gorshorn Freedman on the latter’s real property. • The said representative knew, as he testifies, that it was not Stone’s matter, that he had nothing to do with it, but he nevertheless insisted that the defendant sign the application in Stone’s name. He testifies that he did this because the defendant was a clerk in Stone’s office. Such application contained an agreement that the' signer of it, Stone, should pay for the making of the search. The defendant testifies that he told the plaintiff’s representative that ■ he was asking for the loan for a firm of attorneys whom he named, and the said representative acknowledged on the stand that that might be so ; he would not deny it.
Henry Hetkin, for the appellant.
Albert A. Hovell, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Gaynor, J. :
The evidence shows that the plaintiff -knew that the defendant was acting in a representative capacity, a'nd not for himself. Judg ment seems to have been given against Inin because he signed Stone's name without authority, but he did this at the plaintiff's insistence, the latter knowing that Stone had nothing to do with the matter (Crandall v. Rollins, 83 App. Div. 618).
The judgment should be reversed.
Jenks, Hooker, Rich .and Miller,. JJ., concurred.-
Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.