Case Name: ALBANY COUNTY BANK v. BURTON & CORY CIDER & VINEGAR CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-12-06
Citations: 26 N.Y.S. 563
Docket Number: 
Parties: ALBANY COUNTY BANK v. BURTON & CORY CIDER & VINEGAR CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 26
Pages: 563–564

Head Matter:
ALBANY COUNTY BANK v. BURTON & CORY CIDER & VINEGAR CO.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.
December 6, 1893.)
Evidence—Admissions.
In an action against a corporation by the assignee of a claim for money loaned, the fact that the assignor, after commencing an action against the corporation, became uncertain as to the authority of the agent of defendant who procured the loan and transferred his claim to plaintiff, does not affect the liability of defendant.
Appeal from Albany county court.
Action by the Albany County Bank, as assignee of Stephen D. Van Natta, against the Burton & Cory Cider & Vinegar Company, to recover for money loaned to defendant by. plaintiff’s assignor. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before MAYHAM, P. J., and PUTNAM and HERRICK, JJ.
Stedman, Thompson & Andrews, (Arthur L. Andrews, of counsel,) for appellant.
Peter A. Stephens, (John A Stephens, of counsel,) for respondent.

Opinion:
PUTNAM, J.
Whether or not Burton was authorized to borrow money for defendant was, under the evidence in the case, a question of fact for the trial court. On that question we are unable to hold that he did not reach a correct conclusion. Fifth Nat. Bank v. Navassa Phosphate Co., 119 N. Y. 256, 23 N. E. 737; Marine Bank v. Butler Colliery Co., (Sup.) 5 N. Y. Supp. 291; Id., 125 N. Y. 695, 26 N. E. 751; Kraft v. Association, 87 N. Y. 628. The liability of defendant to Van Natta, if any, arose at the time the loan was made. The fact that afterwards, and after Van Natta had commenced an action against defendant, he was uncertain whether or not Burton was authorized to make the loan, and accepted his money from plaintiff, does not, we think, in any manner affect the liability of defendant. At the most the transaction shows that Van Natta was in doubt as to such liability. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.