R.T. Adams Co. v. Israel

• Decision Date: 05 March 1923
• Citation: 138 N.E. 319,244 Mass. 139
• Parties: R. T. ADAMS CO. v. ISRAEL.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

244 Mass. 139

138 N.E. 319

R. T. ADAMS CO.

v.ISRAEL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 5, 1923.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Hugo A. Dubuque, Judge.

Action of contract by the R. T. Adams Company against A. M. Israel to recover for work and labor performed and materials furnished in laying hardwood floors. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

The answer was a general denial and payment. The evidence showed payment had been made to one in charge of plaintiff's branch office as manager by checks drawn payable to him. Subject to plaintiff's exception, defendant testified that Carnes, the manager, said he would like to have some money; that he took out his check book, and Carnes told him to make out the check to him; that he asked him why he wanted it made out in his name, and Carnes told him that he was the one who collected and made payments; that he (defendant) asked for something to show for the amount paid, and Carnes gave him a receipt. Subject to exception, defendant also introduced the checks given Carnes. Subject to exception, plaintiff testified, in answer to questions by the court, that he never notified defendant that Carnes did not have authority to collect money, or gave him notice that all checks should be payable to the R. T. Adams Company.

Plaintiff excepted to the failure to give rulings (1) that on all the evidence plaintiff was entitled to recover; (3) that making a check payable to an employee was not payment to plaintiff; (4) that there was no evidence that plaintiff, by acquiescence or negligence, etc., had created any circumstances warranting defendant in the exercise of reasonable prudence and discretion in making a check payable to Carnes; (5) that it was not within the apparent scope of Carnes' authority to request payment by means of a check payable to him; (6) that there was no evidence that Carnes was authorized to make collections; (7) that there was no evidence that he was authorized to collect from defendant; (8) that, if a certain bill had been altered without plaintiff's authority before defendant received it, no inference could be drawn therefrom as to knowledge on plaintiff's part of any payments made to Carnes; (9) that, where plaintiff's existence was known to defendant before any payment by defendant, there was no obligation on plaintiff's part to notify defendant not to make checks in payment of the bill, except to plaintiff's order. Plaintiff also excepted to certain parts of the charge as given.

Harry Bergson, of Boston, for plaintiff.

Henry A. Eyges, of Boston, for defendant.

CROSBY, J.

This is an action of contract to recover for labor performed and materials furnished in laying hardwood floors in the house of the defendant. There was evidence that the principal office of the plaintiff corporation was in Boston; that in May, 1920, it maintained a branch office in Springfield, in this commonwealth, in charge of one Carnes; that the plaintiff furnished Carnes, for his use as manager of the office, cards upon which appeared the name of the company, its address, and ‘M. A. Carnes, Springfield, Manager’; that he had been employed as manager since the time the Springfield office was opened in 1917; that he made contracts on behalf of the plaintiff and quoted prices to customers; that he was employed to obtain orders, hire men, and inspect the work; that he would advance moneys and send a statement to the Boston office of the amount due, which would be returned to him in the check sent for the payroll; that he had no instructions to collect any bills. The plaintiff's president and treasurer testified that there might have been some instances in which Carnes collected money from customers,...