Pierce v. Apple

Irrespective of the question that the contract sought to be enforced by the defendant was not a contract made by the then owner of the premises, but was one executed by a person purporting to be the agent of a firm that never had any title to the premises, this judgment should be reversed, because, even if it had been made by the owner, it was a mere collateral personal undertaking, which did not bind the plaintiff in this action. Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment directed for the plaintiff, with costs.

SCOTT, J., concurs.

(concurring). I concur upon the additional ground that it appears from the conceded facts that the plaintiff purchased without notice. Henck v. Barnes, 84 Hun, 546, 550, 32 N. Y. Supp. 840.