Legal Opinion

Sheehan v. Elliott Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided March 5, 1929PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSnow, J.

No question is raised as to procedure. It appears to be conceded that the record is designed (Gerry v. Neugebauer, ante, 23, 25) to present the questions (1) of the validity of the court’s ruling of the general want of implied authority in a superintendent to bind his principal in contracts of the nature here involved, and (2) of the sufficiency of the facts reported to support the court’s verdict.

1. There was no error in the court’s ruling. The superintendent or foreman of a business firm or corporation ordinarily has no implied authority to employ a surgeon or physician at the expense of…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad v. McMurrayIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Cushman v. Cloverland Coal & Mining Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Holmes v. McAllisterMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
  4. St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas Railway Co. v. HooverSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1890
  5. Swazey v. Union Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1875

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Barton v. City of ManchesterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1970
  2. Breest v. PerrinDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API