Majority
p. 562EMILE S. LEGRAND, Plaintiff and Respondent v. MANHATTAN MERCANTILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Appellant.
Headnote
CORPORATION.1. EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENSE BY, NOT ADMISSIBLE.
(a) In an action brought to recover for services rendered from December 1, 1874, to June 22, 1878, as a general banking clerk and French correspondent, at a stipulated compensation, the answer denied all the allegations of the complaint, except the allegation that defendants were an association; theininutebook of the corporation is not admissible on its own behalf, for the purpose of showing that there was no resolution of the board of directors authorizing the plaintiff’s employ.
p. 563Decided November 4, 1878.
Exceptions to the sustaining of general objections to the following questions are not well taken.
Q. Do you know whether the directors of the company ever authorized the employment of anybody for the purpose of making a code?
Q. Was a code, such as you have heard described by this witness, necessary, or did it appertain in any way to the business of that corporation.
Q. Had the company at this time any use, or was it engaged in any business, in which a code could be used?
Q. As treasurer of the Manhattan Mercantile Association, did you ever have in your possession a dollar of money?
Q. Do you know, as Treasurer of the Manhattan Mercantile Association, or otherwise, whether 500 shares of the capital stock of that company were subscribed for and 25 per centum thereof paid in?
Q. Was there ever the sum of $25,000 paid into the company?
Q. Did the company ever do any business other than that of appointing a board of directors?
2. EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM SUFFICIENT.
(a) In such action as above, plaintiff, by his own testimony, showed that one of the directors employed him as French correspondent and general clerk, at a certain salary per month; that the company was doing no business; that it was understood he was first to make a telegraphic code, and when business came he was to be French correspondent and to do all the work which would be given him; that he was set at work on a telegraphic code for the company; that all the officers of the company knew he was at work on this code: that there was a slip prepared for entry in the book in which all the salaries to April 1, 1875, including his own, was entered; that every director of the company at that time had seen the slip, that the secretary had frequently told' him the amount of his salary, that the making a telegraphic code was no part of his duty as banking clerk or French correspondent.
Held,
Sufficient .to support a direction for a verdict in plaintiff’s favor.
In this case the trial judge directed a verdict for
p. 564
plaintiff. From the judgment entered upon this direction defendant appealed.
Gardñner á Goodheart, attorneys, and Samuel B. Garvin, of counsel, for appellant.
Charles A. Jackson, attorney, and Richard Mathews, of counsel, for respondent.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.