EASTERN RENOVATING CORPORATION v. Forhan
| Decision Date | 21 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 72-1718-C,73-460-T. |
| Citation | 391 F. Supp. 204 |
| Parties | EASTERN RENOVATING CORPORATION v. Martin J. FORHAN, Defendant, and The Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Joseph D. ZALESKI, Third-Party Defendant. EASTERN RENOVATING CORPORATION v. Fabian ZATOR, Defendant, and The Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Joseph D. ZALESKI, Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Edward L. Richmond, Richmond, Kassler & Feinberg, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff and third-party defendant.
John Michael Harrington, William G. Meserve, Ropes & Gray, Boston, Mass., for defendants.
This matter came before the Court on the basis of motions for summary judgment filed by defendants in these civil actions which were consolidated for purposes of pretrial discovery. Plaintiff, a Connecticut corporation engaged in the repair of buildings, brought actions of contract against the named defendants in both cases, seeking to recover for repair work done on certain churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts. The defendants counterclaimed for funds already paid to plaintiff and its principal officer.
The motions for summary judgment are based on the fact, established by affidavit and not denied by plaintiff, that Joseph D. Zaleski, president and treasurer, and sole stockholder of plaintiff corporation, was aware of the fact that the Bishop of Springfield had placed a $1,000 limitation on the authority of the Pastors with whom plaintiff made contracts for church repairs. Plaintiff seeks to avoid its knowledge of this limitation with the contention that it had reasonable grounds to believe that the $1,000 limitation on a Pastor's authority to make a contract on behalf of the Bishop, which it learned of in 1964, was no longer operative in 1972 when these contracts were entered into.
The parties are in agreement that the Bishop of the Diocese of Springfield, a corporation sole, owns, operates and administers both of the churches, repairs to which are involved herein. In Massachusetts the law is settled that "one who deals with an agent with knowledge of his limited powers does so at his peril." McCarthy v. Parker, 243 Mass. 465, 468, 138 N.E. 8, 9 (1923). Cf. Cauman v. American Credit Indemnity Co., 229 Mass. 278, 283, 118 N.E. 259 (1918), and Restatement (2nd) of Agency, § 166. It is also settled Massachusetts law that "the authority of an agent is a question of fact, `the answer to which depends upon the inferences to be drawn from a variety of circumstances relating to the conduct of the apparent agent, and whether the circumstances are such as to warrant persons dealing with him, in the exercise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grabowski v. Bank of Boston
...law is settled that `one who deals with an agent with knowledge of his limited powers does so at his peril.'" Eastern Renovating Corp. v. Forhan, 391 F.Supp. 204, 205 (D.Mass.1975) (quoting McCarthy v. Parker, 243 Mass. 465, 468, 138 N.E. 8, 9 (1923)); see also Cauman v. American Credit Ind......
-
Frankina v. First Nat. Bank of Boston
...Frankina correctly asserts that an agent's authority to make binding promises is a question of fact, see Eastern Renovating Corp. v. Forhan, 391 F. Supp. 204, 205 (D. Mass. 1975); Salem Bldg. Supply Co. v. J.B.L. Constr. Co., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 360, 365, 407 N.E.2d 1302, 1306 (1980), he pres......
-
Selame Associates, Inc. v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
...in question." Lord v. Lowell Institution for Savings, 304 Mass. 212, 214, 23 N.E.2d 101, 102 (1939). See also Eastern Renovating Corp. v. Forhan, 391 F.Supp. 204, 205 (D.Mass.1975); Costonis v. Medford Housing Authority, 343 Mass. 108, 176 N.E.2d 25, 28 (1961); Neilson v. Malcolm Kenneth Co......
-
Penta v. Concord Auto Auction, Inc.
...limited, he deals with the agent at his peril."); McCarthy v. Parker, 243 Mass. 465, 468, 138 N.E. 8 (1923); Eastern Renovating Corp. v. Forhan, 391 F.Supp. 204, 205 (D.Mass.1975). The extent of an agent's authority is, of course, a question of fact. See Costonis v. Medford Housing Authy., ......