Am. Well Works v. Royal Indem. Co.

Decision Date16 May 1932
Docket NumberNo. 56.,56.
Citation160 A. 560
PartiesAMERICAN WELL WORKS v. ROYAL INDEMNITY CO.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court
160 A. 560

AMERICAN WELL WORKS
v.
ROYAL INDEMNITY CO.

No. 56.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

May 16, 1932.


Syllabus by the Court.+++

1. A principal is bound by the acts of his agent within the apparent authority which he knowingly permits the agent to assume, or which he holds the agent out to the public as possessing. The question in every case depending on apparent authority of the agent is whether the principal has by his voluntary act placed the agent in such a situation that a person of ordinary prudence, conversant with business usages and the nature of the particular business, is justified in presuming that such agent has authority to perform the particular act in question; and, when the party relying upon such apparent authority presents evidence which would justify

160 A. 561

a finding in bis favor, he is entitled to have the question submitted to the jury.

2. If the trial judge admits evidence of what an alleged agent said in the matter in question, before any evidence had been given that he was the agent of the party for whom he acted, such irregularity will not result in a reversal of the judgment against the principal, if afterwards, in the progress of the cause, the evidence tended to sufficiently prove that he was the duly constituted agent for the purpose.

3. Where the authority of one acting as an agent to make a contract and sign a memorandum thereof is denied, other contracts of a similar nature made at or about the same time and under similar conditions and circumstances, and paid in full by the principal, are admissible in evidence to show the agent's authority to bind his principal and ratification of his acts.

4. No prejudicial error results from overruling questions put to a witness, where later, during his examination, he is permitted to testify, in effect, respecting the fact sought to be proved.

5. The exclusion of a copy of a letter offered by the defendant, alleged to have been written by the defendant to a third party, if technically erroneous, will not lead to a reversal when it appears that the officer of the defendant company who produced the paper, and who was admittedly in charge of the entire matter, had already testified respecting the matters contained therein which were claimed to be evidential.

G. It is within the discretion of the trial judge to permit cross-examination of a witness as to his conduct respecting the matter in controversy, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not such conduct was inconsistent with what he testified to in chief.

7. Where a trial judge distinctly instructs the jury that they are not to rely upon his quotations from the evidence as being accurate, but must depend upon their own recollection, he is at liberty to quote from the testimony to the best of his recollection, and an inadvertent misconception of the evidence will not result in a reversal, so long as the right and duty of the jury to decide for themselves all disputed questions of fact is pointed out in the charge.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Suit by the American Well Works against the Royal Indemnity Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Collins & Corbin, of Jersey City (Edward A. Markley, of Jersey City, of counsel), for appellant.

Fleming &amp...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Automated Salvage Transport v. Nv Koninklijke Knp
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 23 Diciembre 1999
    ...on an alleged apparent authority, "he is entitled to have the question submitted to the jury") (quoting American Well Works v. Royal Indemn. Co., 109 N.J.L. 104, 108, 160 A. 560 (1932)). 3. Restatement (Second) of Agency Section Defendants, in arguing that the Court should grant summary jud......
  • National Premium Budget Plan Corp. v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, L--11133
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • 13 Septiembre 1967
    ...New Jersey law on the subject. Reaffirming and quoting from the opinion in American Well Works v. Royal Indemnity Co., 109 N.J.L. 104, 108, 160 A. 560 (E.&A.1932), the court 'The rule is that the principal is bound by the acts of his agent within the apparent authority which he knowingly pe......
  • U.S. v. Acorn Technology Fund, L.P.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 23 Octubre 2003
    ...A.2d at 1018-19; Legge Indus. v. Joseph Kushner Hebrew Academy/JKHA, 333 N.J.Super. 537, 756 A.2d 608, 621(2000); Am. Well Works v. Royal Indem. Co., 160 A. 560 (E. & A.1932). The evidence establishes that Summit was aware that ATF was regulated by the SBA. The evidence also shows that Summ......
  • C. B. Snyder Realty Co. v. National Newark & Essex Banking Co. of Newark, A--36
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 21 Diciembre 1953
    ...the latter category the settled rule is reiterated in the Erie R.R. Co. case, supra, is stated in American Well Works v. Royal Indemnity Co., 109 N.J.L. 104, 108, 160 A. 560, 562 (E. & A.1932) as 'The rule is that the principal is bound by the acts of his agent within the apparent authority......
  • 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