Majority
p. 478CARROLL v. FARLEY. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. December 16, 1908.) Argued before GIFGERICH, HENDRICK, and FORD, JJ.
Headnote
1. Principal and Agent (§ 123[1] )—Authority—Evidence.Plaintiff’s own evidence in an action for services that defendant admitted to him the authority of defendant’s alleged agent and knowledge of promises made by such agent in his behalf was sufficient to sustain a verdict in plaintiff’s favor.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. §§ 420, 422, 424; Dec. Dig. § 123.*]
2. Appeal and Error (§ 215*)—Presentation of Question Below.
Where, in an action for services, neither party objected to an instruc- ' tion in reply to an inquiry by the jury as to whether they might find in a less amount than a certain sum that they might find the reasonable value of the services, reversible error cannot be predicated thereon.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 1309; Dec. Dig. § 215.*]
Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
Action by George A. Carroll against J. P. Farley. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
David M. Neuberger, for appellant.
Samuel H. Wandell, for respondent.
There was sufficient evidence found in the plaintiff’s own testimony, if the jury believed it, to sustain the verdict. He testified that the defendant admitted to him the authority of Croker, the alleged agent of the defendant, and also admitted knowledge of the promises made by Croker on his behalf. I can find nothing in the record which renders this testimony of the plaintiff improbable.
No reversible error appears in the rulings or in the judge’s charge. In reply to an inquiry made by the jury as to whether they might find in a less amount than $800, the judge told them that they might find the reasonable value of the services, and neither side objected to such instruction. 0
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.