DocketNumber: Appeal, 28
Judges: Rhodes, Hirt, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold, Fine
Filed Date: 11/12/1947
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Argued November 12, 1947. Defendants appeal from a decree requiring them to specifically perform a contract for the sale of land, the naked title of which was in the Savings Trust Company of Indiana, Pa., the New York Central Railroad Company being the actual owner.
The written contract was a series of letters passing between the plaintiff and C.A. Dobbins, "Assistant General Land Agent" of the railroad company, and written upon its letterhead.
The appellants concede that these letters established a contract under which the railroad company promised to convey the real estate, but deny that performance can be specifically decreed because of our Statute of Frauds, reading in part (
At trial there was a total absence of proof that C.A. Dobbins, Assistant General Land Agent, had any written authorization from his employer, the railroad company. The court held that since a corporation can only act through agents, and since Dobbins was an agent acting in the scope of his authority, proof of his authorization was not necessary.
Our Statute of Frauds makes no such exception, and we apprehend that the courts have no power to add, as a proviso, the words "except as to corporations." *Page 278
The question of the necessity of written authorization to the regular employe of a corporation, in order to satisfy the Statute of Frauds as to a corporation's contract, has apparently not been passed upon by our courts, except in Henry v. Black,
The question here involved is the subject of an annotation to the case of H.M. McCartney et al. v. Clover Valley Land StockCompany (C.C.A.), 232 Fed. 697, 1 A.L.R. 1127, 1132. In theMcCartney case there was a close corporation, and the person who made the contract for it was the treasurer and at the same time the chief executive officer and a director. The action was brought by a broker for commissions, and under the circumstances it was held that written authority was unnecessary. *Page 279
Courts of Alabama,1 Illinois,2 New York3 and California4
have extended the doctrine to regularly employed agents of corporations who were not officers. The Supreme Court of New Jersey in Stammelman v. Interstate Company,
We think that any variation of the rule enunciated by our statute, insofar as corporations are concerned, must be confined to executive officers of the entity, and cannot be extended to officers of the business thereof. While corporations were not common in 1772, when our Statute of Frauds was enacted, yet they did exist, and "The Philadelphia Contributionship", for insurance of houses from loss by fire, was incorporated by the Legislature in 1768, 1 Sm. L. 279. The statute was added to in 1855 (
The provisions of our Statute of Frauds requiring the authority of the agent to be in writing, operates in the present case to bar the remedy of specific performance, for the agent who signed the contract for the railroad company was not an executive officer thereof, and no authority in writing was shown.
The decree of the court below is reversed and the bill dismissed. Costs to be paid by the appellee.