From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. Minnerly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1913
156 App. Div. 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 1913)

Opinion

April, 1913.


Judgment and order reversed, and the motion to dismiss the complaint, made at the close of the entire case, granted, and judgment directed in favor of defendant accordingly, with costs and disbursements in this court and in the court below, upon the ground that if the evidence warranted a finding by the jury that Peterson acted as the agent of defendant in the purchase of goods, he was not the agent of an undisclosed principal, but such principal was known to plaintiff's assignor at the time the goods were purchased and he chose thereafter to make a contract with the agent directly, and to hold him solely responsible therefor, when he filed the notice of mechanic's lien. He must be deemed, therefore, to have waived any right to proceed against the principal. ( Matter of Bateman, 7 Misc. Rep. 633; affd., 145 N.Y. 623; Tuthill v. Wilson, 90 id. 423.) Jenks, P.J., Burr, Thomas and Rich, JJ., concurred; Hirschberg, J., dissented.


Summaries of

King v. Minnerly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1913
156 App. Div. 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 1913)
Case details for

King v. Minnerly

Case Details

Full title:John E. King, Respondent, v. Anna P. Minnerly, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 1, 1913

Citations

156 App. Div. 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 1913)