Grier v. Hazard, Hazard & Co. — 38 N.Y. St. Rep. 462

Majority

p. 462

Matthew C. Grier et al., Ex’rs, Resp’ts, v. Hazard, Hazard & Co., App’lts.

(City Court of New York, General Term,

Filed March 10, 1891.)

Headnote

1. Trial—Direction of verdict.

A statement by defendant's attorney at the close of the case that he does not see any question of fact in the case is equivalent to an admission, and authorizes the court to direct a verdict.

2. Corporations—Liable for work ordered by corporators.

Where work is ordered by corporators in contemplation of the corporate formation and goes to its benefit, the corporation is liable therefor.

Appeal from judgment entered on verdict in favor of plaintiffs.

Gruber, Bard & Landon, for app’lts; Burnett & Whitney, for resp’ts.

At the conclusion of the trial the defendants attorney said he did not see any question of fact in the case, which statement is tantamount to an admission on which the court was. at liberty to act The court is not bound to discover a point or objection in the case when counsel frankly concede that none exist. The court properly acted on the concession and directed a verdict No objection was raised by demurrer, or in the answer, as to the capacity of the executors to sue on the contract alleged, and that objection has therefore been waived. Code, § 499.

The work was evidently done in contemplation of the corporate formation, and went to its benefit Mr. Hazard, who ordered the work, seems to think he should not pay for it because the corporation got the benefit of it, and the corporation thinks it ought not to pay for the work because Hazard ordered it This may sound well to all concerned except the plaintiffs, who are entitled to-their earnings.

Upon the entire case it is apparent that no injustice has been done, and that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Van Wyck, J., concurs.