Wait v. Nashua Armory Ass'n
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, to recover for services of tlie plaintiffs as architects in preparing plans and specifications for a proposed armory. At the trial before a jury, it appeared that the defendant corporation was organized for the purpose of building and maintaining an armory in Nashua for the use of a portion of the state militia.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, to recover for services of tlie plaintiffs as architects in preparing plans and specifications for a proposed armory. At the trial before a jury, it appeared that the defendant corporation was organized for the purpose of building and maintaining an armory in Nashua for the use of a portion of the state militia. The plaintiffs introduced evidence tending to show that they were employed to render such services by Copp, the president of the corporation, assuming to act in its behalf. The defendants offered in evidence the by-laws of the corporation, for the purpose of showing that…
1Opinion of the CourtBlodgett, J.
The plaintiffs have no ground of complaint, for even if the by-laws were improperly admitted for the purpose of showing that the president had no power to make contracts in behalf of the corporation without the sanction of the directors, it does not afford sufficient cause for setting aside the verdict.
The evidence for the plaintiffs simply tended to show that they were employed by the president to prepare plans and specifications for the proposed armory, and that he assumed to act for the corporation, but there was no evidence that the corporation in any way authorized him to procure such…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Goodspeed v. East Haddam BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1852
- Collins v. MerrellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
- Mahone v. Manchester & Lawrence RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Walworth County Bank v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by13 opinions
- City Electric Street Railway Co. v. First National Exchange BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
- Standard Underground Cable Co. v. Southern Independent Telephone Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1911
- Model Clothing House v. HirschIndiana Court of Appeals · 1908
- Quaker Oil & Gas Co. v. Jane Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- Kline Bros. v. Royal Ins. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1911
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.