Holland v. Laconia Building & Loan Ass'n
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. Facts found by tbe court. The defendants recovered a judgment against the plaintiff'upon a mortgage as follows: “It is therefore considered by the court that unless the defendant [the plaintiff in this action] pay the plaintiff [the defendants in this action] the sum of within sixty days from date of judgment, that the plaintiff' [defendants in this action] recover possession of a certain tract of land set forth at large in the writ on file, and cost taxed at…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. Facts found by tbe court. The defendants recovered a judgment against the plaintiff'upon a mortgage as follows: “It is therefore considered by the court that unless the defendant [the plaintiff in this action] pay the plaintiff [the defendants in this action] the sum of within sixty days from date of judgment, that the plaintiff' [defendants in this action] recover possession of a certain tract of land set forth at large in the writ on file, and cost taxed at $5.57.” A writ of possession issued, and the defendants were put in possession of the premises and retained it for a year.…
1Opinion of the CourtChase, J.
The defendants had not authorized their president and treasurer to contract in théir behalf. So far as appears, there was no course of dealing from which authority could be inferred. The officers did not have authority by virtue of their offices. Without action by the corporation specially conferring it, they had no more authority in this respect than any other member of the corporation. P. S., c. 149, ss. 3, 4; 2 Cook Stock & Stockh., ss. 716, 717; Wait v. Association, 66 N. H. 581. Their assurances to the plaintiff, therefore, were not assurances of the corporation and cannot bind it, even…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Clough v. FowlerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1884
- Wait v. Nashua Armory Ass'nSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1891
- Brown v. WestSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1889