Erie Malleable Co. v. Standard Parts Co.

(after stating the facts as above).

The only conflict in the evidence is in reference to the knowledge of Scott, receiver, as to the existence of this contract. While the master’s *84■finding that Scott did not have knowledge of Younger’s contract with the corporation is fully sustained by' the evidence, that fact is not of controlling importance. Younger was paid for all the services performed by him during the term of that contract. His present cause of action is based upon a breach of an alleged new contract or a renewal of the original contract by implication of law, not for a like term, but…