Empire Cream Separator Co. v. Parillo
| Decision Date | 02 January 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 5868.,5868. |
| Citation | 127 A. 1 |
| Parties | EMPIRE CREAM SEPARATOR CO. v. PARILLO. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Arthur P. Sumner, Judge.
Action by the Empire Cream Separator Company against Alfred Parillo. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff excepts. Exceptions sustained in part and overruled in part.
Edward C. Stiness, Daniel H. Morrissey, and Francis J. O'Brien, all of Providence, for plaintiff.
Benjamin Clanciarulo, of Providence, for defendant.
This is an action in assumpsit on two promissory notes of the face value of $64 and $240, respectively, given in payment for merchandise. The defendant contended that there was a failure of consideration, and that the payee received the notes as agent for the plaintiff.
The case was tried before a justice of the superior court, sitting with a jury. Said justice directed a verdict for the plaintiff on one note, and submitted to the jury issues as follows: Whether there was a failure of consideration for the second note, and also whether the payee, in receiving said note, was acting as agent for the plaintiff. The jury decided both issues in favor of the defendant, and the case is before us on the plaintiff's exceptions as follows: To the refusal of the trial justice to direct a verdict for the plaintiff on the second note, and to the denial of the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
It appears that one A. J. Fuller from time to time sold farming implements to the defendant, and received in payment the defendant's promissory notes payable to Fuller's order. The defendant contends that Fuller in making these sales was not doing business for himself, but was acting as agent for the plaintiff; that the second note was given in payment for an Empire gasoline engine, and that Fuller, instead of delivering an Empire engine, shipped to the defendant a Monarch, engine. The plaintiff's testimony, which was submitted on deposition, is to the effect that Fuller was never the agent of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff sold farming implements to Fuller who resold them to his customers; that the plaintiff at times received on account of Fuller's indebtedness notes which he had taken in payment for merchandise; that Fuller purchased for resale farming implements from persons other than the plaintiff; that the second note was received by Fuller in payment for an engine which he purchased from another concern; that the plaintiff received said note...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilbert v. Girard
...Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 214 F.2d 47 (7th Cir. 1954). This Court apparently aligned itself with the latter group in Empire Cream Separator Co. v. Parillo, 47 R.I. 178, 127 A. 1. In that case an out-of-court utterance of a person who assumed to act as the agent for another was admitted without obj......
-
Gilbert v. Girard
...be found at 79 A.L.R.2d 890. The attention of the parties is also directed to our own cases and particularly to Empire Cream Separator Co. v. Parillo, 47 R.I. 178, 127 A. 1; Geremia v. Targlianetti, 45 R.I. 197, 121 A. ...
-
Smith v. Tompkins, s. 7057-060.
...is agent must first be proved. Paulton v. Keith, 23 R. I. 164, 49 A. 635, 54 L. R. A. 670, 91 Am. St. Rep. 624; Empire Cream Separator Co. v. Parillo, 47 R. I. 178, 127 A. 1. Of course the supposed agent may testify as to the extent of his agency, or his agency may be proved by other compet......