Hyperlawhypertext legal database Latiner v. Wonderland Amusement Co. 146 N.Y.S. 779

← Cases

Latiner v. Wonderland Amusement Co.

146 N.Y.S. 779 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1914-03-13 English

Contents

Majority

p. 779
LATINER v. WONDERLAND AMUSEMENT CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
March 13, 1914.)

Headnote

Corporations (§ 432[1] )—Actions for Wrongful Discharge—Authority of Treasurer.
In an action for wrongful breach of a contract of employment entered into between plaintiff and defendant’s treasurer, evidence that defendant corporation accepted and paid for plaintiff’s services for one week is sufficient prima facie evidence of the treasurer’s authority to bind defendant.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1717, 1718, 1724, 1726-1735, 1737, 1743, 1762; Dec. Dig. •§ 432.[1] ] •
p. 780
Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
Action by Bernard Eatiner against the Wonderland Amusement Company. From a judgment on dismissal of complaint,, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J„ and McLAUGHEIN, LAUGH-LIN, SCOTT, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.
Eugene I. Yuells, of New York City, for appellant.
Jerome Wilzin, of New York City, for respondent.

Plaintiff sued for damages for breach of a contract of employment. The alleged contract was oral, and was made, on defendant’s behalf, by Burlinghoff, its treasurer. After one week’s service, for which he was paid, plaintiff was discharged. The complaint was dismissed for lack of proof that Burlinghoff had authority to bind defendant by a contract running for so' long a period as the one sought to be established. We think the facts proved made out a prima facie case. Whether or no the treasurer has or has not power to enter into ordinary contracts affecting the- usual business of the corporation, but not necessarily pertaining to its finances, it is not now necessary to determine. In Parmelee v. Associated P. & S., 9 Misc. Rep. 458 , 30 N. Y. Supp. 250 , the report fails to show whether the action was for wages or for damages for unlawful discharge, but the opinion seems to have been based on the assumption that prima facie a treasurer has power to enter into ordinary contracts of employment. Here the evidence showed that the defendant accepted and paid for plaintiff’s services for one week, and this, we think, was sufficient prima facie evidence of Burlinghoff’s authority to bind defendant by the contract alleged. Phillips v. Campbell, 43 N. Y. 271 , 272; Traitel Marble Co. v. Brown Bros., Inc., 159 App. Div. 485 , 144 N. Y. Supp. 562 .

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant.to abide the event.

Cases cited