74 N.J.L. 734 | N.J. | 1907
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This writ brings up for review a judgment entered upon a verdict returned at the Morris Circuit.
It may be necessary, in determining the validity of this exception, to briefly refer to other facts in evidence, in addition to those already stated. There was evidence, which was without contradiction, that Mr. Connolly was general manager of the company in the work at the dam and in the stone quarry nearby, which was worked in connection therewith; that Connolly was actually in charge of the work at the dam until his death, except when he was ill; that he employed other men for the company upon the work. Defendant’s witness, Mr. Kennedy, a director, testified that the engineer’s general office staff (in which the plaintiff was included) were employed by Mr. Connolly and himself; that “the men who performed the work were oftentimes employed by Mr. Connolly, or by any foreman or superintendent who had jurisdiction.” lie testified further, “he had power to fix salaries, he thought, and Mr. Connolly had, also,” and that “whenever there was a question raised, the executive committee approved it.” He further testified that Connolly was in charge of the physical work there, and that lots of men were employed there that he, witness, did not know about. There was no testimony,“however, to show that the plaintiff had any knowledge or information that there was any limitation upon the authority of Connolly to fix the wages of the men employed at the time of the contract or during plaintiff’s service. Therefore, such limitation, if it existed, would not bind plaintiff. 2 Pars. Cont. 57. Nor does it appear that plaintiff was in any way connected with the defendant corporation so as to be charged with knowledge of the actual powers of Mr. Connolly as manager. We think it apparent, from the evidence, that so far as the. plaintiff or the public were concerned, Connolly was acting, at the time he made this contract, not as special agent, but as general agent of the company in the work at Boonton and in the employment of men upon the work, including the plaintiff. At any rate, in so doing he was acting within the apparent authority of the company as defined in
Nor do we think there was error in that part of the charge which reads: “Mr. Connolly, as the evidence shows, was in charge of the employing of workmen at or near Boonton for this company, and if he did employ this plaintiff under a contract of this character, the court charges that he had power to do so, and that from its acceptance of the plaintiff’s services the defendant is estopped from denying Mr. Connolly’s authority.” We think this was justified upon the principles already stated above. • Our conclusion is, therefore, that the judgment below should be affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Ci-iiee Justice, Garrison, Eort, Hendrickson, Pitney, Swayze, Eeed, Trenchard, Bogert, Yredenburgh, Yroom, Green, Gray, Dill, J.J. 15.
For reversal — None.