Strawbridge v. Clamond Telephone Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 342, Jan. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1897, No. 1310, on verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit on a contract. Before Brégy, J. From the record it appeared that the action was brought to recover $2,060 for legal services at $50.00 per day in examining certain patents for the defendant. The claim was based upon a contract. Notice was served upon the defendant to produce the minute-book, but this notice was disregarded.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 342, Jan. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1897, No. 1310, on verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit on a contract. Before Brégy, J. From the record it appeared that the action was brought to recover $2,060 for legal services at $50.00 per day in examining certain patents for the defendant. The claim was based upon a contract. Notice was served upon the defendant to produce the minute-book, but this notice was disregarded. C. Hartman Kuhn, president of the company, testified that he had employed the plaintiffs, and that his action in doing so…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mk. Justice Fell,
The only thing in dispute at the trial was the authority of the president of the corporation defendant to enter into the contract upon which the action was founded. It was conceded that services had been rendered and that the defendant might be held liable on a quantum meruit, but its liability on the contract was denied on the ground that the president had not been authorized by the board of directors to make it. The defendant offered no testimony, but relied wholly upon the incompetency and insufficiency of that offered by the plaintiff.
Before the trial a regular…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Carland & Bierne v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1860
- Milliken v. BarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847