2. Evidence of authority of agent, when? Trask v. Jones et al.,...62
1. When an agent or officer of a cor- poration, in good faith, in the proper discharge of his duty, applies his own money or makes use of his own chattels for the proper uses of the corporation, he may recover for such money or such use. Rider et al. v. The Union India Rubber Co.,...85
2. Although an agent or officer can- not, as such, make a contract with himself, and so bind his principal to himself, his principal is nevertheless bound to pay for property used by his agent, in the faithful discharge of his duty, for purposes within his authority, and the measure of com- pensation is the fair value of the property so used.
3. One who deals with or disposes of the personal property of another (the same not being negotiable pa- per) must see to it that he acts by the authority of some one who has power sufficient to warrant such dealing or disposition. Anderson et al. v. Nicholas, ..121
money due to his principal, and having credited the principal with the amount thereof may sue thereon in his own name. Fish v. Jacob- sohn,.. .514
7. Where the authority of an agent was general in respect to a par- ticular business, (the management of a theatre,) carried on by the de- fendant, and it appeared that, ac- cording to the habit and course of business, his agency embraced the receipt and disbursement of the moneys of the theatre, and the rais- ing of money to carry it on when required: Held, that the defendant is liable for money paid by the re- quest of such agent for the rent of the theatre in which her business was carried on, and for which she was liable as lessee. Hearne, Adm'x, v. Keene,
Vide CORPORATION, 2, 3, 5, 6. EVIDENCE, 1, 2.
MONEYED CORPORATION, 9, 10. Pleadings, 1, 6, 7.
1. Although in the progress of an action for a divorce alimony pen- dente lite has been once fixed and allowed to the plaintiff, the amount may be altered and increased upon its appearing that the necessities of the plaintiff require it, and the amount of the defendant's property is such that the increased allow- ance is reasonable. Forrest v. For- rest, ..672
2. The amount reported to be rea- sonable by the Referee, appointed to settle the amount of permanent alimony, is not to be taken as the rule in determining the alimony to be allowed pending the further liti- gation, and while that report is itself in course of being reviewed on ex- ceptions..... ....id
3. In determining the allowance of alimony, the amount of the principal of the defendant's estate being stated by himself, it is just to assume that he makes that principal yield a rea- sonable income unless he shows some sufficient reason why he does not and cannot.. .id
under a written agreement signed by the vendors and vendees, and such agreement is, in form and terms, that the vendors and ven- dees "constitute and appoint B. and W. to appraise" the property, and "bind themselves each to the other to abide by their valuation of the same, at which" (the vendors)
agree to sell the same to" the vendees, and the latter "agree to buy the same" of the vendors; and in case B. and W. "should be unable to agree in their valuation, they shall select a disinterested party, as usual in such cases, to assist them in the appraisement;" and where B. and W., being unable to agree, se- lected a third person, and the three met together and examined the pro- perty, and two of them agreed up- on a valuation, the vendors are enti- tled to recover the sum so agreed upon, although such third person was selected upon an agreement between him and B. and W. that he should fix the value and they would concur in it, provided that agreement was abandoned, and the three did in fact meet and examine the property together, with a view to determine its fair value, and the value so agreed upon was fixed in good faith, and expressed the honest judgment of the two who concurred in respect to it. Haff v. Blossom et al., ..559
1. An order drawn by one who has furnished supplies to a vessel in- dorsed upon one of her bills of la- ding and drawn upon the master requesting him to pay a sum named, describing it as the freight on the bill of lading, of which the within is a copy, and accepted by the mas- ter with the knowledge and assent
of the owners of the vessel, is a sufficient equitable assignment of the freight of the goods in such bill of lading mentioned, and entitles the assignees to recover that freight from the shippers of the goods. Trask v. Jones et al.,.... .....62
2. The drawing and delivery of a bank check do not operate as an assignment to the payee of the funds in bank to the credit of the drawer. Butterworth, Receiver, v. Peck et al.,. .341
1. Where goods are taken by the sheriff under an attachment against a debtor, and a third person brings an action against the sheriff for such taking, claiming the goods as transferree of the debtor, the sheriff may show as a defense that the transfer by the debtor to the plain- tiff was with intent to defraud creditors, although the attaching creditor has not recovered judg- ment. Thayer v. Willet, Sheriff, 344
2. Where the owner of goods, resid- ing in Ohio, consigned them to a factor residing in New York city, for sale, and such factor, on advice of shipments of goods from time to time, and on receipt of bills of lading for such goods advanced to the consignor, and on the 6th of April, 1854, the consignee's advances and charges exceeded in amount the value of the consigned property which had then come to hand, but were less in amount than the value of the whole consigned property, (including the value of that for which bills of lading had been received, but which had not then arrived,) and all of such consigned property arrived by the 15th of June, 1854, and on subsequent sales produced a surplus, after paying all advances and charges, an attachment against the
« PreviousContinue » |