From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saint Paul-Mercury Ind. Co. v. Manganaro

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 2, 1946
186 Misc. 161 (N.Y. App. Term 1946)

Opinion

January 2, 1946.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, SHALLECK, J.

Robert J. Blum for appellant.

Max Epstein for respondent.


MEMORANDUM


Respondent in signing the application as president of the corporation became personally liable. No fraud on the part of plaintiff was proven and it was respondent's duty to read the clause. His failure to do so does not excuse him ( Pimpinello v. Swift Co., 253 N.Y. 159).

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, judgment directed for plaintiff for $500, in addition to attorney's fees, the amount of which is to be determined in the court below, with interest and costs.


I dissent. In signing the application for the bond as president of his corporate principal respondent had no reason to believe he was agreeing to become an indemnitor. It is true that as between himself and the corporation he owed an obligation to the latter to read the small print agreement, and his failure in that regard would be no defense to an action by the plaintiff against the corporation for breach of contract; but there was no contractual relation between plaintiff and respondent, and Pimpinello v. Swift Co. ( 253 N.Y. 159) has no bearing on the controversy.

McLAUGHLIN and EDER, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam; HECHT, J., dissents in memorandum.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Saint Paul-Mercury Ind. Co. v. Manganaro

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 2, 1946
186 Misc. 161 (N.Y. App. Term 1946)
Case details for

Saint Paul-Mercury Ind. Co. v. Manganaro

Case Details

Full title:SAINT PAUL-MERCURY INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant, v. THOMAS MANGANARO…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jan 2, 1946

Citations

186 Misc. 161 (N.Y. App. Term 1946)
60 N.Y.S.2d 177

Citing Cases

La Nationale v. Lavan

I must presume that defendant who executed the contract with the Automobile Club, knew its contents. (…