1. Defendant was president of an in-
corporated company known, as the
T. O. and M. Company, and in-
tending and being empowered to
bind the company thereby, made a
note, running as follows: "I prom-
ise to pay, as president of the T. O.
and M. Co., &c.," signed his name,
adding, "President of the T. O.
and M. Co." and for value received,
delivered it to plaintiff; the plain-
tiff knew of the defendant's agency,
and, that in making the note, he
intended to charge only the com-
pany.-Held, an action seeking to
charge defendant personally on the
note, could not be sustained. Ran-
dall v. Snyder.
representation as to the power of
the corporation, he is not person-
notice of the acceptance of the
order; but that said defendants,
having terminated their agency,
had substituted one of themselves
in the order, as the person for
whom the goods were to be manu-
factured; and that the manufac-
turers, under the direction of the
defendant, so substituted, had for-
warded the same with knowledge
of the plaintiff's claim, to the other
defendants at New York, by whom
they had been received.-Held, the
plaintiff established no title which
would enable him to maintain the
action. Mackay v. Mackay.
See STATUTE OF FRAUDS, 1 to 5.
STOCKHOLDERS, 2.
TELEGRAPH COMPANIES, 1
lly bound by the contract if it See SUPERINTENDENT OF Canals, 1,
turns out it was ultra vires as to
the corporation.
6. In an action to recover possession
of merchandise, the plaintiff, to es-
tablish his title, proved that he had
given an order upon the manufac-
turers in England, through two of
the defendants, as his agents, for
the articles to be made and sent to
The law implies a promise of in-
demnity to an agent, who, believing
the directions of his principal to be
rightful, executes them; and this,
where there is no deceit or mis-
representation by the principal,
respecting his right to delegate the
authority. Turner v. Jones.
147
2. It is, it seems, a general principle
of law, to imply a promise, where
none is expressly made, and equity
and good conscience require one.
Id.
See MARRIED WOMEN, 1, 2.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, 1, 2.
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, 1.
him at New York, and had re- See SUPERINTENDENT OF CANALS,
ceived from such manufacturers,
3. Issues of fact in the civil actions sub-
stituted for the writ of quo warranto
and proceedings by information in
the nature of quo warranto, are not,
under the Code, triable, as of course,
by a jury. When, in such action,
the complaint and the nature of the
case call for equitable relief, the
cause regularly comes on for trial
by the court. And, although on
timely application, the question of
title to the office might be tried
before a jury, a demand for a jury,
made after the parties and wit-
nesses are present, prepared for
the trial, and plaintiff has opened
the case, read the pleadings and
rested, may be refused. People v.
Albany and Susquehanna R. R.
Co.
308
1. The directors of a railroad com-
pany are authorized, but not
imperatively required, by the gen-
eral railroad act (Laws 1851, chap.
140, § 6), to appoint a secretary and
202
treasurer. People v. Hills.
2. The statute (Laws 1850, chap. 389,
§ 290, amended 1867, p. 92), giving
power to the city of Rochester, as
the owner of stock of the Roches-
ter and Genesee Valley Railroad
Company, to appoint, through its
common counsel, a portion of the
board of directors of said company,
does not authorize the election of
any person to such board who is
not a stockholder in his own right,
and qualified under § 6 of the gen-
eral railroad act.
Id.
See CONTRACT, 4, 5.
CONTRACTOR, 1, 2.
EVIDENCE, 17.
MASTER AND SERVANT, 1, 2, 3.
QUO WARRANTO, 1, 2.
See INFANT, 1, 2.
STATUTE OF FRAUDS, 3.
1. To a complaint by the payee, on a
negotiable promissory note, the
defendants answered a non-joinder
of parties plaintiff, and in order o
establish the defence, proved that
the note was made and delivered
to the plaintiff, a member of a
partnership firm, with the firm's
consent, for moneys loaned from
firm funds, and in furtherance of
its contract.-Held, plaintiff was
entitled to maintain the action, and
the defence was not sustained.
Mynderse v. Snook.
1. The practice in relation to the
appointment of receivers ex parte
reviewed. People v. Albany and
308
Susquehanna R. R. Co.
See EVIDENCE, 17.
PRACTICE, 12.
See MORTGAGE OF CHATTELS, 6
1. A referee's finding of the non- See TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS, 1 to 5.
2. Plaintiff was retained by defend-
ants, administrator and adminis-
tratrix of an estate, and acted for
them on a final accounting in 1852,
and also on an appeal from the
surrogate's decree, which was re-
but T. retained the certificates; T.
had, in the latter transaction, ex-
ceeded his authority, and his prin-
cipal repudiated the purchase.—
Held, error to charge T. in an action
against stockholders for contribu-
tion, as the equitable owner of said
stock. Aspinwall v. Torrance 381
See CONTRIBUTION, 1, 2, 3.
ELECTION OF DIRECTORS, 3, 4, 5.
versed, and the matter sent back See VENDOR AND PURCHASER OF
|