Hochster v. Baruch
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal, from judgment of justice of Fourth District Court in' favor of plaintiff for $85. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJ. F. Daly, J.
The judgment should be reversed. The evidence shows that defendant agreed to pay the expenses, not as agent of Rothschild, but as principal. Even if he made the agreement as agent of Rothschild, yet, having no authority to make it, he would be liable, upon the principle that one who assumes to contract in the capacity of agent without having competent authority to do so becomes himself personally bound (7 Wend. 315 ; 1 Denio, 402). He had no authority, and says so himself. And still further, if, as the testimony would indicate, Rothschild lived in Germany, the defendant would be liable upon…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Meech v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Bank of Rochester v. MonteathCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
3Cited by5 opinions
- Black v. MaddoxSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- Williams v. GravesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1894
- Bauman Rubber Co. v. Karl Light & Sons, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1930
- Bixby v. DrexelNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1879
- Head & Amory v. Providence InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1804