Cochran & Rathbun v. Newton
New York Supreme Court
Assumpsit, to recover the amount of the taxed bills of costs in ten several suits in the supreme court in which the plaintiffs in this case were the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Flea, non-assumpsit.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, to recover the amount of the taxed bills of costs in ten several suits in the supreme court in which the plaintiffs in this case were the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Flea, non-assumpsit. The plaintiffs, on'thetrial before-a sole reféree, gave evidence tending to show that the defendant was a'member of an association of persons formed in the year 1844, for the purpose of running packet boats on the Erie canal between Schenectady and Utica, and that one Flowers was the general agent of the association iti conducting its business. It appeared that towards the close of navigation in 1844,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Beardsley, Ch. J.
The authority of Flowers, admitting him to have been the general agent of the association, did not enable him to bind his principals in a case like the present. It was not within the scope of his agency. The authority of paitners in a mercantile firm is at least as comprehensive as- that of the agent in this case; and yet it .could not be pretended that a general partner could bind the firm to pay *484the costs of a suit in favor of one of its clerks brought for a violation of his personal rights. The suits for which these costs were claimed were remote from the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Eaton v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Cheney v. RicksIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
- Kirby v. Western Wheeled Scraper Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1897