South Brooklyn Sawmill Co. v. Cronin — 36 N.Y.S. 934

Majority

p. 934

(91 Hun, 229.)

SOUTH BROOKLYN SAWMILL CO. v. CRONIN et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

December 2, 1895.)

Headnote

Principal and Agent—Authority op Agent.

Evidence that one B., the agent of plaintiff corporation, which had sold goods to defendant, said that he had a job for defendant to hire a pile driver to one M.; that defendant replied, “1 will collect this from you;” and ' that B. answered, “I am all right; we are good for the bill,”—shows that defendant hired the pile driver to M., and that B. was to collect "the bill, but imposes no liability on plaintiff for the hire of the pile driver.

Appeal from circuit court, Kings county.

Action by the S’outh Brooklyn Sawmill Company against Richard Cronin and others to recover the sum of $101, with interest,—a balance alleged to be due for goods sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendants. From a judgment entered on a verdict directed by the court in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

James C. Church, for appellants.

Hyland & Zabriskie, for respondent

This is an appeal from a judgment and an order denying a motion for a new trial upon the minutes of the court. The

p. 935

action was for the recovery of $101, with interest, for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants. The answer admitted the claim of the plaintiff, and set up a counterclaim of $96, for the use of a pile driver, and the counterclaim was controverted by the plaintiff. The testimony of one of the defendants upon that subject was that Mr. Buckley, who was acting for the plaintiff, said to him;

“ T have got a big job down there,’ he says, ‘for you to hire a pile driver, and I told him $10 a day.’ Says 1, ‘Who is it for T He said, ‘McBean,—a fellow by the name of McBean.’ Says 1. T am told that this man is a great blower,’—so I heard,—‘and Buckley,’ says I, ‘1 will collect this bill from you.’ And Buckley says, T am all right; we are good for the bill;’ and so I gave it to Buckley.”

The true construction of that testimony is that the pile driver was hired to McBean, and Buckley was to collect the bill for the defendants. That arrangement imposed no liability upon the plaintiff, and constituted no counterclaim in favor of the defendants. The verdict was properly directed for the plaintiff, and the judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.