Brounfield v. Denton
Supreme Court of New Jersey
■ Oil error to the Supreme Court. The declaration in this case contains the common counts and one special count. The special count avers that the defendant authorized and empowered .one Franklin Mortimer to act as his agent in making sale of five hundred shares of stock in the American Household Hardware Manufacturing Company; that the said Mortimer, in order to sell said shares of stock to the plaintiff and intending to deceive and defraud him, made to him certain false…
Read the full summary
■ Oil error to the Supreme Court. The declaration in this case contains the common counts and one special count. The special count avers that the defendant authorized and empowered .one Franklin Mortimer to act as his agent in making sale of five hundred shares of stock in the American Household Hardware Manufacturing Company; that the said Mortimer, in order to sell said shares of stock to the plaintiff and intending to deceive and defraud him, made to him certain false representations touching the value thereof, confiding upon which the plaintiff bargained with the said Mortimer to buy said…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Garrison, J.
Tire trial court correctly ruled that there was no proof of Mortimer’s agency, and from this it followed, of necessity, that tire declarations made by him were inadmissible against the defendant.
Notably, the acts and declarations of Mortimer were inadmissible to prove his own agency. Gifford v. Landrine, 10 Stew. Eq. 127; affirmed, Id. 628; Pederson v. Kiensel, 42 Vroom 525; 1 Ell. Evid., § 252.
Mortimer’s agency not having been shown, his declarations could not be proved against the defendant, and with these declarations stricken out there…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Mesce v. Automobile Association of New JerseyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950
- Standard Oil Co. v. Linol Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1907
- Philadelphia Dairy Products Co. v. ZimmerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1936