Finkelstein v. Waldo — 46 N.Y.S. 686

Majority

p. 686

(20 Misc. Rep. 701.)

FINKELSTEIN v. WALDO.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

July 15, 1897.)

Headnote

Liability op Principal—Contract with Agent.

It is no defense to an action to recover for work, the doing of which was authorized by the defendant through an agent, that there was an agreement between the defendant and the agent that the latter should pay for the work, unless plaintiff did the work with knowledge of such agreement; nor is the payment of money to the agent, which is not paid by him to the plaintiff, a defense.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by Louis Finkelstein against Gertrude R Waldo. Judg ment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before MCCARTHY and SOHUCHMAN, JJ.

Howard P. Okie, for appellant.

T. G. Anderson, for respondent.

It must be conceded, for the purposes of this case, that Mr. Converse was the agent of the defendant, and the work done for which the claim is made was authorized and for the benefit of the defendant, but, as she wanted to show under some agreement between her and the said Converse, was to be paid for by Converse. This agreement could not and would not affect the plaintiff unless brought home to his notice, and that said work was performed with a knowledge of such special agreement; nor would the payment of any money to Converse which was not paid to the plaintiff by Converse relieve the defendant of the liability unless the plaintiff took it under such conditions and knew of such agreement. She herself said she was the owner of the premises, and that the work was well done, and she received the benefit of it. The judge’s charge was fair, and in accordance with the law, and there was no error committed on the trial. The verdict was right and just.

Judgment must therefore be affirmed, with costs.

SOHUCHMAN, J., concurs.