Case Name: AMMI T. BUTLER, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THE EVENING MAIL ASSOCIATION, Defendants and Respondents
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1871-12-31
Citations: 2 Jones & S. 58
Docket Number: 
Parties: AMMI T. BUTLER, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THE EVENING MAIL ASSOCIATION, Defendants and Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 34
Pages: 58–63

Head Matter:
AMMI T. BUTLER, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THE EVENING MAIL ASSOCIATION, Defendants and Respondents.
The defendants, publishers of a daily evening newspaper, known as The Evening Mail, are the successors of Charles H. Sweetzer in that enterprise, and plaintiffs furnished printing paper for use in their business, to recover payment for which they bring this action.
The account on plaintiff’s books stands in the name of Charles H. Sweetzer, Evening Mail, and was commenced and continued for some time previous to defendants becoming such publishers. After the change, in answer to plaintiffs’ inquiry as to the change in the account on their books, Sweetzer told plaintiffs there was no necessity for a change, as he was the principal stockholder and the manager of the corporation, and, in fact, he was the Evening Mail Association, &c,, and plaintiffs continued the account on their books under the same name. Held, by the referee, and sustained by the court, that the sale of the paper was made and the credit given to Sweetzer and not to defendants, and plaintiffs could not recover in the action.
See dissenting opinion by Mohell, L, reviewing Meeker v. Claghorn, 44 H. T. 349.
Before Barbour, Ch. J., and Monell, and Jones, JJ.
Decided December 31, 1871.
Appeal from a judgment entered on a report of a referee.
The facts fully appear from the opinions.
James M. Smith, for appellants.
Henry H Anderson, for respondents.

Opinion:
By the Court.—Barbour, Ch. J.
This case comes before us on appeal, by the plaintiffs, from a judgment entered against them upon the report of a referee, in an action for the recovery of a balance alleged in the complaint to be due and owing to the plaintiffs by the defendants in an account for printing paper sold and delivered. The answer contained a full denial of the alleged purchase and indebtedness.
Upon tbe trial it appeared that prior to March 16, 1868, one Charles H. Sweetzer had been in the habit of purchasing paper from the plaintiffs which was charged to him; that on March 16 a joint stock association was formed between Sweetzer and several other persons for the purpose of printing and publishing books and newspapers; that, shortly after the associa tion was formed, Sweetzer informed one of the plaintiffs of that fact, and further stated that it was not ne cessary for them to make any change in the keeping of the account, as he was the largest owner of the stock, and, in reality, " he was the association and the association was him;" that the paper, as delivered, was thenceforward charged by the plaintiffs on their books to Sweetzer, and receipted for, usually, as delivered to him, and that payments were made, from time to time, upon the account, in Sweetzer's checks. Evidence was also given by the plaintiffs tending to prove that the paper in question was used by the association in the publication by them of their newspaper, The Evening Mail.
The referee's conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to entitle the plaintiffs to a recovery seems to have been correct. When Sweetzer, who was the acting agent of the defendants, told the plaintiffs that he and the association were one inasmuch as he was the principal stockholder, and that the account might be continued in his name, it is quite possible the plaintiffs had a right to elect whether they would recognize him as their debtor in the credits to be given, or the association ; and the fact that they charged the goods, to the former, took his receipts therefor, and received his checks in payment upon the account, is pretty strong evidence that the credit was given to Sweetzer, and not to the association. Let that be as it may, however, it is enough to say that the evidence is of such a character that two persons of equal judgment, but with differently constituted minds, might honestly arrive at opposite conclusions as to the person to whom the credit was given. It was the province of the referee to determine that question of fact; and his finding is as much a finality as the decision of a jury would have been. We cannot properly say, upon the evidence before us, that he erred;
The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.