Legal Opinion
Edelstone v. Salmon Falls Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided May 6, 1930PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, C. J.
The plaintiffs’ evidence tended to prove a contract negotiated by Lyman. The nonsuit was ordered because of lack of proof that Lyman’s acts bound the defendant. The plaintiffs claim sufficiency of their evidence to show express authority, implied authority, a holding out of the agent as authorized, and a ratification of his acts.
The general authority conferred upon the treasurer by the by-laws did not give him any power to close out the business. Such power as he had related to the conduct of the affairs of a going concern. Dow v. Railroad, 67 N. H. 1. When the issue of abandonment of the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Davison v. ParksSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1919
- Bohanan v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900
- Dow v. Northern RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1886
- Castonguay v. Acme Knitting MacHine & Needle Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
- Smith v. Bank of New EnglandSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Brownell v. Tide Water Associated Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1941
- Reed v. LinscottSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1934
- Gibbs v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1934
- Seacoast Electric Co., Inc. v. Franchi Bros. Construction Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1971
- Sullivan v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.