This page is an unofficial LFoD record and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
Armand Chouinard v. Union-Leader Publishing Co.
February 1, 1944 - Opinion
Case records
Open case page| Date | Record Text | Type | Party | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| February 1, 1944 | Armand Chouinard v. Union-Leader Publishing Co. Current page | Opinion | Supreme Court | Reporter |
Hillsborough,
Feb. 1, 1944.
No. 3460.
Armand Chouinard v. Union-Leader Publishing Co.
William G. McCarthy (by brief and orally), for the plaintiff.
McLane, Davis & Carleton and Robert P. Bingham (Mr. Bingham orally), for the defendant.
Burque, J.
The evidence fails utterly to prove one of two indispensable requisites to maintain an action of assumpsit, to wit: that the defendant received any of the money plaintiff paid to Zyla, or that the money was paid to Zyla as the defendant’s agent, duly authorized to hire the plaintiff for the company and to receive for the company any of the profits derived from the conduct of the. newsstand. Without such proof, the action cannot be maintained. 4 Am. Jur. s. 20 p. 510; Alexander v. Coyne, 143 Ga. 696; Agawam National Bank v. South Hadley, 128 Mass. 503, 507.
J udgmentfor defendant„
All concurred.