Dunn v. Rector, Wardens, & Vestrymen of St. Andrews Church
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, to the court of common pleas of the county of Rirhmnnrt rxicnmona. The plaintiff in error brought an action of assumpsit in the court below, against the defendants in error, for work and labour, &c. The defendants pleaded the general issue.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, to the court of common pleas of the county of Rirhmnnrt rxicnmona. The plaintiff in error brought an action of assumpsit in the court below, against the defendants in error, for work and labour, &c. The defendants pleaded the general issue. At the trial, the plaintiff proved, by parol, that he had performed services for the defendants as clerk of the church of the defendants, and in which divine service was performed by the rector; and that the defendants had paid him money on account of such services ; but a balance still remained due to him. This evidence being objected to, the…
1Per curiam
The sole question arising upon the bill of exceptions in this case is, whethér an action of assumpsit upon an implied promise can be maintained against a corporation. The ease of the Bank of Columbia v. Paterson’s administrators, decided in the supreme court of the United States,* and which is r referred to by this court in Danforth v. The Schoharie Turnpike, (12 Johns. Rep. 231.,) goes the full length of making corporations answerable upon implied promises. It is there laid down, that it is a sound rule of law, that, whenever a corporation is acting within the scope of the legitimate…
2Cited by19 opinions
- City of Davenport v. Peoria Marine & Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Mott v. HicksNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Young v. United States Mortgage & Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1915
- First National Bank v. DrakeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
- Dubuque Female College v. District TownshipSupreme Court of Iowa · 1862
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.