Second Avenue Railroad v. Mehrbach
Opinion of the Court
—The action was for damages for the conversion of what were called in the
It was claimed on the trial that the proof showed that the loan of the seven bonds to Fellows was authorized by the plaintiff in general powers that had been conferred by them on defendant, and also that this special transaction had been ratified by the plaintiff. There was no testimony tending to show any ratification. As to the claim of authority under general power, it is not necessary to ascertain what general powers the defendant had, for his powers as to bonds like those in question were the subject of specific authorization by resolution. That resolution conferred on him authority to sell at a certain price. There was no proof that this resolution had become in any way inoperative or unobserved by tacit consent. The loaning to Fellows was not a sale. It was not a transaction, the object of which was a return of money for the loan. It was solely for the benefit of Fellows, to enable him to pay the subscription price of the twenty-five bonds.
There was no error in the proceedings on the trial, and the court was right in directing a verdict for plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Truax and Ingraham, JJ., concurred.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.