Case Name: Laura H. Pope, as Administratrix of the Estate of Philip A. Fischer, Deceased, Appellant, v. Margaret I. Hoyt, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1923-02-02
Citations: 235 N.Y. 526
Docket Number: 
Parties: Laura H. Pope, as Administratrix of the Estate of Philip A. Fischer, Deceased, Appellant, v. Margaret I. Hoyt, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 235
Pages: 526–526

Head Matter:
Laura H. Pope, as Administratrix of the Estate of Philip A. Fischer, Deceased, Appellant, v. Margaret I. Hoyt, Respondent.
Contract — principal and agent — action to recover against wife for services on her property performed pursuant to a contract entered into with husband — complaint dismissed in absence of evidence that wife had ratified contract, knew its terms or had authorized husband to act as her agent.'
Pope v. Hoyt, 200 App. Div. 475, affirmed.
(Argued January 17, 1923;
decided February 2, 1923.)
Appeal from a judgment, entered March 28, 1922, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and directing a dismissal of the complaint. The action was to recover upon a contract in writing executed by the defendant’s husband in his own name. It purported to be a contract directly made with him. There was no mention of defendant in the contract. It appeared that she owned a considerable tract of land at Great Neck, L. I., which it was contemplated to divide in such manner as to be available for sale in parcels. The contract provided that decedent’s assignor was to do certain landscape architectural work on this property for which he was to receive two per cent of the purchase price of every plot sold together with a drawing account of $500, which was to be charged against his commissions subsequently earned. The Appellate Division directed a dismissal of the complaint upon the grounds that it had not been shown that defendant had ratified the contract, knew of its terms or that her husband was authorized to act as her agent in the matter of improving her property.
Watson Washburn for appellant.
Francis E. Neagle for respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur; His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ. Dissenting; Cardozo, Pound and Crane, JJ.