Majority
p. 297The Middlesex County Bank, Pl’ff, v. Hirsch Brothers’ Veneer Manufacturing Company, Def’t. (City Court, New York, General Term, Filed March 27, 1889.)
Headnote
Corporation—Action on promissory note—Indorser— Sufficiency of proof.Where a corporation is sued as indorser of a promissory note, indorsed in their name by “L. Hirsch, Manager,” and there was no proof that the note concerned any business of the corporation, that the corporation ever received any value for it, or benefit from it, or that the manager had power to bind it in the form stated: Held, that the proof was not sufficient, and a new trial was granted.
Appeal from judgment entered on verdict in favor of plaintiff.
Horwitz & Hershfteld, for app’lt; Morris & Savage, for resp’t.
The defendant, a corporation, is sought to be charged as indorser of two promissory notes held by the plaintiff.
The indorsements were made in the name of the defendant by “L. Hirsch, Manager.” There is no proof in the case that the notes concerned any business of the corpora
p. 298
tian, that it ever received any value for, or benefit from the indorsement, or that Mr. Hirsch, the manager, had power to bind it in the form stated. On the contrary, it would rather seem that the corporation received no benefit from the transaction, and that it did not concern the corporation business, a circumstance negativing the existence of authority in Hirsch, even as manager, to bind the corporation as indorser on negotiable paper in which it had no interest or concern.
There must be a new trial of the action, at which the plaintiff may perhaps supply the required proof. See Morawitz on Corporations, § 433; Bank of Genesee v. Patchin B’k, 13 N. Y., 309 ; Life and Fire Ins. Co. v. Mechanics’ Fire Ins. Co., 7 Wend., 31 ; Alexander v. Cauldwell, 83 N. Y., 480 .
Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.