Morgan Munitions Supply Co. v. Studebaker Corp. of America

Decision Date21 March 1919
Citation123 N.E. 146,226 N.Y. 94
PartiesMORGAN MUNITIONS SUPPLY CO., Inc., v. STUDEBAKER CORPORATION OF AMERICA.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Action by the Morgan Munitions Supply Company, Incorporated, against the Studebaker Corporation of America. From an order of the Appellate Division (180 App. Div. 530,166 N. Y. Supp. 37) affirming an order of the Special Term overruling demurrer to the first defense in the answer and reversing that part of the order which sustained demurrer to a second defense, the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.

See, also, 182 App. Div. 890,168 N. Y. Supp. 1120; 183 App. Div. 928,169 N. Y. Supp. 1105.James A. O'Gorman, of New York City, for appellant.

Alfred Gregory, of New York City, for respondent.

CRANE, J.

The appeal is from an order overruling demurrers to the new matter set up as defenses to the cause of action set forth in the complaint.

The plaintiff in its pleading alleges that in the month of September, 1914, at New York City, the defendant entered into an agreement with one Hill G. Morgan authorizing and requesting him to negotiate sales with and obtain orders from the governments engaged in the war, and promised to pay him a commission of 5 per cent. upon the purchase price of all the goods sold by the defendant as the result of his efforts. It further alleges that on or about the 15th day of November, 1914, as the result of the efforts of said Hill G. Morgan, the defendant sold to the government of Great Britain artillery harness and saddles, and received the sum of $16,500,000 in payment, of which Hill G. Morgan's share according to his contract was $825,000. Demand is made for the amount. This action is brought by the plaintiff as the assignee of the said Hill G. Morgan.

The supplemental answer sets up two defenses, the first showing that no contract was made, or else that the contract made cannot be enforced for illegality, and the second alleging facts as and for a rescission of any contract of employment.

As to the first defense: This states that Hill G. Morgan was a retired colonel in the English army, of known and distinguished reputation, having served with Lord Kitchener in Egypt and South Africa, and at the time in question was the administrative member of the British war office for the supply of forage to the troops over sea and home. Francis Curtis Morgan, it is alleged, was a brother of Hill G. Morgan, and illegally impersonated him, by representing in writing to the defendant that he was Hill G. Morgan, and could by his connections stated secure the contracts for the purchase of supplies. The answer then states that these representations were made by Francis Curtis Morgan to obtain employment from the defendant; that the defendant relied upon them in employing Francis Curtis Morgan in the name of and as Hill G. Morgan. In substance the answer is that the contract set forth in the pleading was not made with Hill G. Morgan, but with one Francis Curtis Morgan, posing and impersonating Hill G. Morgan.

Two legal conclusions follow from this defense:

[1] 1. That no such contract was made as the plaintiff alleges; for, if the facts of the defense be true, the plaintiff could not recover upon a contract made apparently and supposedly, but not in fact, with Hill G. Morgan. If the defendant in form contracted with Hill G. Morgan when there was no Hill G. Morgan in the transaction, but somebody else who falsely assumed his name and honors, there would be no contract. This is not a matter of mere name; it embodies the identity of a living person whom the defendant was led to believe it was negotiating with. Any other name and person will not do. We say nothing about quantum meruit, as it is not here before us.

It will be noted also that there is no agency express or implied in the answer.

[2] Some of my Associates are of the opinion that this defense was unnecessary, as under the general denial the defendant could prove that there was no contract with Hill G. Morgan as stated in the complaint. Even if this be so, the matter set forth is a good defense and does not submit to demurrer. Matter which would be sufficient under a general denial loses none of its efficacy by being pleaded as a defense.

[3][4] 2. The facts pleaded in this defense would bar Francis Curtis Morgan from recovering upon the contract in his own name or the name of Hill G. Morgan, because of his violation of section 939 of the Penal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40), which reads:

‘A person who obtains employment * * * by * * * any false statement in writing, as to his name, residence, previous employment or qualification, * * * is guilty of a misdemeanor.’

As held by the Appellate Division in this case, a contract procured by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Republic of Peru, 96 Civ. 7917(RWS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 6, 1998
    ...594, 595-95 finding § 489 violation, voiding assignment contract and dismissing complaint (citing Morgan Munitions Supply Co. v. Studebaker Corp. of Am., 226 N.Y. 94, 123 N.E. 146 (1919) ("No person can maintain an action to which he must trace his title through his own breach of the law.")......
  • Ludwinska v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 25, 1935
    ...that a contract obtained by impersonation is no contract at all as between the parties. Morgan Munitions Co. v. Studebaker Corp., 226 N. Y. 94, 123 N. E. 146; Brighton Packing Co. v. Butchers' Slaughtering & Melting Ass'n, 211 Mass. 398, 97 N. E. 780. In like tenor are Green v. Northern Buf......
  • Watts v. Malatesta
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • May 23, 1933
    ...the claim would be to aid in the execution of an agreement in restraint of trade. See, also, Morgan Munitions Supply Co. v. Studebaker Corporation of America, 226 N. Y. 94, 123 N. E. 146. The rule, therefore, was not confined to one who was a criminal. No one could recover on a contract whi......
  • Hofferman v. Simmons
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • May 27, 1943
    ...rights founded only on lawbreaking. See Woodworth v. Bennett, 43 N.Y. 273, 276, 3 Am.Rep. 706; Morgan Munitions Supply Co. v. Studebaker Corp. of America, 226 N.Y. 94, 99, 123 N.E. 146;Gonch v. Republic Storage Co., 245 N.Y. 272, 157 N.E. 136;Flegenheimer v. Brogan, 284 N.Y. 268, 30 N.E.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT