Case Name: NEW YORK METAL CEILING CO. v. RAUB et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-01-25
Citations: 86 N.Y.S. 249
Docket Number: 
Parties: NEW YORK METAL CEILING CO. v. RAUB et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 86
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
NEW YORK METAL CEILING CO. v. RAUB et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
January 25, 1904.)
1. Corporations—Contracts—Modification—Authority of Agent.
Where, in an action on a contract with a corporation, defendant contended that the original agreement had been modified by a new agreement signed by the corporation’s salesman, but defendant failed to prove that the salesman had authority to modify the contract, such modification could not be considered.
2. Contract—Delay of Performance.
Where, in an action on a contract for work and labor, defendant failed ■to disprove plaintiff’s contention that performance within the time required was prevented by other work carried on by other workmen for defendants, plaintiff was excused from performing within the time
V 2. See Contracts, vol. 11, Cent. Dig. § 1374.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District.
Action by New York Metal Ceiling Company against Herman Raub and another. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and MacEEAN and DAVIS, JJ.
Arthur C. Westermayer, for appellants.
Cromwell G. Macy, for respondent.

Opinion:
MacEEAN, J.
The plaintiff alleged and proved to the satisfaction of the learned justice an agreement in writing by the plaintiff to do certain constructive and decorative work, and its performance for the defendants, for the sum of $6oo, of which $300 were received, and so recovered judgment for the balance of $300 with costs, against the defendants' contention that there had been substituted for the original agreement, executed by the company's secretary and treasurer, a new arrangement, signed by the company's salesman, whose authority they failed to prove, as they also failed to disprove that performance within the time stated in the arrangement they alleged was not delayed by other work carried on by other people for the defendants themselves. The judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent. All concur.