Case Name: Taylor v. Nostrand
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-12-10
Citations: 12 N.Y.S. 180
Docket Number: 
Parties: Taylor v. Nostrand.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 12
Pages: 180–181

Head Matter:
Taylor v. Nostrand.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
December 10,1890.)
Liability of Agent to Third Parties.
Pursuant to a resolution of a water company, appointing plaintiff its agent to take title or options for land in the name of the company, he was employed for that purpose by defendant, a member of the company. By his direction he took the contracts for land in the name of one A., trustee, instead of in the name of the company. No resolution of .any board of officers authorized such change. Held, that plaintiff could recover from defendant for services rendered. Pratt, J., dissenting. ' ;
Appeal from judgment on report of referee.
Action by Grant B. Taylor against P. Elbert Nostrand, for services rendered. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
James S. Allen, for appellant. Howard Thornton, for respondent.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
It seems clear from the evidence that the Ramapo Water Company was nothing but an appearance. The defendant was in point of fact all there was of it, except the form of a certificate of incorporation, which was filed in the secretary of state's office. The defendant was the promoter of the undertaking, or, at least, an important member of the company which was promoting the enterprise, The plaintiff was employed to take title or options for land in the name of the company. He did take the same in the name of one Andrews as trustee. No authority was shown, given by the company, creating Andrews trustee, or authorizing.the title or contract to be taken in his name, The defendant directed the change, and the lands affected thereby were the lands in and about which the plaintiff rendered the service. The defendant justifies the change by reason of the direction of one Lament. No sufficient power to direct the change was proven in Lament. He testifies that he was authorized, but no resolution of any board of directors or trustees was proven to that effect. No doubt it was safer for the promoters to have control of the contract, and in the unsettled state of the company the defendant and Lament made a change of the mode of transfer which was at first prepared. By the change the plaintiff had no claim on the company, and as a consequence thereof he has one agent, the defendant, who ordered the change. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.
Dykman, J., concurs.