Case Name: WOOD et al. v. MANUFACTURERS' COMMERCIAL CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-11-24
Citations: 113 N.Y.S. 3
Docket Number: 
Parties: WOOD et al. v. MANUFACTURERS’ COMMERCIAL CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 113
Pages: 3–4

Head Matter:
WOOD et al. v. MANUFACTURERS’ COMMERCIAL CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
November 24, 1908.)
Peincipal and Agent (§ 190 )—Actions Against Agent—Evidence—Stjbticienct—Negligence.
In an action for negligence against an agent to collect accounts due plaintiffs, the evidence held to warrant a finding for defendant.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Dec. Dig. § 190.*]
MacLean, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
Action by William Wood and another against the Manufacturers’ Commercial Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before GIEDERSLEEVE, P. J., and MacLEAN and SEA-BURY, JJ.
Howard Taylor (John G. Jackson, of counsel), for appellants.
Elbridge L. Adams, for respondent.
For other oases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
SEABURY, J.
The plaintiffs sue to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the defendant. The defendant was the agent of the plaintiffs to collect certain accounts due to the plaintiffs. The evidence presented only a question of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent. The defendant proved the efforts which it made to collect the accounts, and in regard to some of the accounts it offered evidence to show that it would be difficult or impossible to establish that the goods for which the accounts had been rendered were delivered. Upon the whole case, the trial justice was justified in finding for the defendant. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
GIEDERSLEEVE, P. J., concurs.