Schlesinger v. Haase — 97 N.Y.S. 1146

Majority

p. 1146

SCHLESINGER, Respondent, v. HAASE Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Tern

March 2, 1906.)

Headnote

Appeal from City Court c New York, Special Term. Action by Leo Schle; inger, as receiver, against Lewis Haase. Froi a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeal;

Reversed.

Kantrowitz & Bsberg, for appellani

Kneeland, LaFetra & Glaze, for respondent.

We fail to see any just fication for the referee’s finding. Plaintiff services were rendered to and accepted by tb bank. They were peculiarly for the benefi of the bank and the board of directors express ly ratified the employment. The fact tha Rothschild, the president, personally advance the salary, is of no consequence, as it appear to have been expressly understood that he wa to be reimbursed by the bank. As there i

p. 1147

o contradictory proof, the judgment should e reversed, and judgment for the defendant, ■ith costs.