77 Sickels 636
25 N.E 238
Decided October 7, 1890
New York Court of Appeals · decided 1890-10-07
This was an action to recover a balance alleged to be due ■upon an account. The principal questions discussed were as to the right oi plaintiff’s husband to bind her by his own acts ostensibly a$ her agent, and as to whether certain transactions were authorized by her, as to which the verdict was held to be conclusive. A sentence in the charge was excepted to ; it was held there was no evidence warranting the submission of the question stated therein to the jury.
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1918
4 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1890-10-07
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1 reads for reversal and new trial, unless plaintifl •stipulates within twenty days to deduct $1,187.50 and interesi from August, 22,1882, from the judgment rendered, m whicl: case the judgment, as so modified, is affirmed.
¶2 All concur, except Folleít, Oh. J., who reads for affirmance and dissents.
¶3 Judgment accordingly.