Opinion
April 24, 1950.
In an action to recover for broker's commissions, plaintiffs appeal from so much of an amended judgment as dismissed their complaint against New York Water Service Corporation, after trial before a jury. Judgment, as amended, reversed on the law and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The Trial Justice erroneously ruled that the customer of plaintiffs could not testify as to ownership of bonds or real property without the production of the bonds or deeds. The terms of the bonds or deeds were not at issue. It was not error to refuse to let witnesses testify as to the net worth of the customer in the absence of evidence of the details of assets and liabilities and their value. It was error to prohibit testimony that would have established that the customer had control of the moneys in the bank accounts of his wife and son and that the moneys were available to him to make the purchase. It was error also to charge that the proper way to obtain evidence of authority of an officer of a corporation is by a certified copy of the resolution empowering the officer to act. If in fact defendant Neilson had been authorized by the board of directors to hire brokers and to negotiate and agree upon the terms for a sale of the property, plaintiffs were not obliged to procure a certified copy of the resolution of authority before dealing with him. It should be observed, however, since he is no longer a party defendant, his declarations to plaintiffs or to their customer cannot establish his authority. While his presence as a party justified in large part the rulings complained of by plaintiffs, it was error to limit his examination by plaintiffs on the theory that he was not a hostile witness. In view of the foregoing rulings of the Trial Justice and his comments when plaintiffs attempted to have the jury hear all that had transpired at the meeting of the board of directors on December 27, 1946, the plaintiffs were unduly restricted in the presentation of proof of a cause of action. In the interests of justice a new trial is granted. We have considered the questions of fact. A new trial would not be granted on those questions. Johnston, Acting P.J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.