Hyperlawhypertext legal database Bernstein v. Standard Ice Cream Co. 134 N.Y.S. 1096

← Cases

Bernstein v. Standard Ice Cream Co.

134 N.Y.S. 1096 Court Argued April term, 1912, before SEABURY, GUY, and GERARD, JJ. Decision date 1912-05-09 English

Delivered by SEABURY, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 1096
BERNSTEIN et al. v. STANDARD ICE CREAM CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
May 9, 1912.)

Headnote

Corporations (§ 432[1] )—Contract—Execution—Authority—Evidence.
To recover on a contract made by an individual on behalf of a corporation, the evidence must show the individual’s authority to contract for the corporation, or a ratification.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1717, 1718, 1724, 1726-1737, 1743, 1762; Dec. Dig. § 432.*]
Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
Action by Solomon Bernstein and another against the Standard Ice Cream Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, and an order
p. 1097
denying a motion for new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued April term, 1912, before SEABURY, GUY, and GERARD, JJ.
Max Schenkman, of New York City (Charles Goldzier, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Watts & Merrill, of New York City (Maurice Rubinger, of New York City, of counsel), for respondents.

This action was brought to recover 60 per cent, of the disbursements made and expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in dissolving a corporation and organizing a new corporation, under an oral contract alleged to have been made by the plaintiffs and one Ginsberg, acting on behalf of the defendant corporation. Assuming that the contract was made, the evidence is insufficient to establish that Ginsberg was authorized to make the contract, or that the defendant corporation ratified the contract alleged.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.