McMurray v. Sisters of Charity of St. Elizabeth
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On error to the Supreme Court. The action resulting in the judgment now under review was begun in the Supreme Co-urt in December, 1899. The plaintiffs declared on the common counts, annexing a notice as follows: "Notice is hereby given that this action is brought to recover the amount due on a certain acceptance of an order upon said defendant, which order was in form following, to' wit: " ‘New York, January 31, 1898. “ ‘Rev. J. A. Shepard, Passaic, N. J.: “ ‘Dear Sir—We…
Read the full summary
On error to the Supreme Court. The action resulting in the judgment now under review was begun in the Supreme Co-urt in December, 1899. The plaintiffs declared on the common counts, annexing a notice as follows: "Notice is hereby given that this action is brought to recover the amount due on a certain acceptance of an order upon said defendant, which order was in form following, to' wit: " ‘New York, January 31, 1898. “ ‘Rev. J. A. Shepard, Passaic, N. J.: “ ‘Dear Sir—We authorize you to pay to Robert T. McMurray & Brother, the sum of $2,360.00 (80% of our contract with him for iron work on…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Collins, J.
It is at least doubtful if, under the terms of his power of attorney, Father Shepard had any authority to bind the defendant by the verbal acceptance found by the jury, and it is more than doubtful if his subsequent statements were legal evidence to bind the defendant as admissions; but it is not necessary to say more than this on these subjects, for we are unanimously of opinion that, upon the facts above recited, a verdict in favor of the defendant should have been directed upon the ground that the so-called order, acceptance of which was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Herter v. Goss & Edsall Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1894