Case Name: FRED. HASSELMEYER v. THE AVONDALE LOAN & BUILDING CO.; HIEATT EDWARDS v. THE AVONDALE LOAN & BUILDING CO.
Court: Cincinnati Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1900
Citations: 8 Ohio N.P. 195
Docket Number: 
Parties: FRED. HASSELMEYER v. THE AVONDALE LOAN & BUILDING CO. HIEATT EDWARDS v. THE AVONDALE LOAN & BUILDING CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio nisi prius and general term reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 195–195

Head Matter:
(Superior Court of Cincinnati.)
General Term.
FRED. HASSELMEYER v. THE AVONDALE LOAN & BUILDING CO. HIEATT EDWARDS v. THE AVONDALE LOAN & BUILDING CO.
A director of a building association in receiving deposits from members who are employes under him acts as the agent of the members entrusting their deposits to him, and not as the agent of the association.
C. W. Baker, for Plaintiff in Error.
J. D. DeWitt, for Defendant in Error.

Opinion:
JACKSON, J.
These were actions in whioh the plaintiffs sought to recover from defendant on account of deposits which it was alleged defendant had received from plaintiffs from time to time At the trial below the evidence showed that all weekly payments were made to one Patrick Fahey, who was overseer of the car barns of the Cincinnati Street Eailway Company, the plaintiffs being employes of said company, and under the immediate control of said Fahey. The money so received by Fahey was never paid over to the defendant. Fahey was a director of the defendant company, but he was not the secretary or treasurer thereof, nor was he directly or indirectly authorized to accept and receipt for money in behalf of the company. At the trial the court below instructed the jury to return verdict for the defendant on the ground that the evidence showed that Fahey was acting solely as the agent for plaintiffs, and not as agent for the defendant. In this we see no error. The question at issue has been directly decided in Sachs v. Duckworth Building & Loan Association, 4 N. P. 214.
The judgment of the court below will, therefore, be affirmed.