Jennie Clarkson Home for Children v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
Court of Appeals of New York
74 N.E. 571 (1905)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
George Lessels stole registered bonds owned by the Jennie Clarkson Home for Children (children’s home) (plaintiff) that had been issued by Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company (railway) (defendant). The bonds were not transferable unless their registered holder recorded the transfer on the railway’s books. Lessels brought the bonds to Robert Gibson (defendant), a member of the stock exchange, to convert the bonds to Lessels’s use. The railway told Lessels that a transfer would require (1) a resolution of the children’s home’s board of directors authorizing the transfer and (2) a power of attorney executed by the children’s home authorizing transfer to the bearer. Lessels forged the resolution and had a power of attorney (POA) drawn up at Gibson’s office. Lessels signed the POA in the name of the children’s home, with Gibson witnessing and signing the document. The railway changed the bonds to be payable to the bearer. Gibson sold the bonds and paid the proceeds to Lessels. The children’s home sued the railway and Gibson to recover the bonds’ value. The railway, in turn, requested a judgment against Gibson for any amount the railway was compelled to pay to the children’s home. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the children’s home, and the appellate division affirmed. The defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Haight, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
