We fail to see any just fication for the referee’s finding. Plaintiff services were rendered to and accepted by tb bank. They were peculiarly for the benefi of the bank and the board of directors express ly ratified the employment. The fact tha Rothschild, the president, personally advance the salary, is of no consequence, as it appear to have been expressly understood that he wa to be reimbursed by the bank. As there i *1147o contradictory proof, the judgment should e reversed, and judgment for the defendant, ith costs.
97 N.Y.S. 1146
SCHLESINGER, Respondent, v. HAASE Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Tern
March 2, 1906.)
Appeal from City Court c New York, Special Term. Action by Leo Schle; inger, as receiver, against Lewis Haase. Froi a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeal;
Reversed.
Kantrowitz & Bsberg, for appellani
Kneeland, LaFetra & Glaze, for respondent.
Schlesinger v. Haase
97 N.Y.S. 1146
Case Details
97 N.Y.S. 1146
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!