Judges: Blodgett, Clark
Filed Date: 6/5/1891
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
The plaintiffs have no ground of complaint, for even if the by-laws were improperly admitted for the purpose of showing that the president had no power to make contracts in behalf of the corporation without the sanction of the directors, it does not afford sufficient cause for setting aside the verdict.
The evidence for the plaintiffs simply tended to show that they were employed by the president to prepare plans and specifications for the proposed armory, and that he assumed to act for the corporation, but there was no evidence that the corporation in any way authorized him to procure such plans and specifications, nor was there any evidence of such authority on his part from any source, unless it could be implied from his office. But no such authority is incident to the office. The directors, and not the president, have the powers of the corporation, and the president has no implied authority as such to act as the agent of the corporation, but, like *Page 582
other agents, he must derive his power from the board of directors or from the corporation. G. L., c. 148, s. 3; Morrill v. Railroad,
Exception overruled.
CLARK, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Morrill v. Boston & Maine Railroad ( 1877 )
Standard Underground Cable Co. v. Southern Independent ... ( 1911 )
Thompson v. North Star Muskrat Farm, Inc. ( 1931 )
Mechanicks National Bank v. Comins ( 1903 )
Westminster National Bank v. New England Electrical Works ( 1906 )
Kidd v. New Hampshire Traction Co. ( 1907 )
Quaker Oil & Gas Co. v. Jane Oil & Gas Co. ( 1917 )
Marsh v. Concord Mutual Fire Insurance ( 1902 )
Hilliard v. Upper Coos Railroad ( 1913 )