
    Alessandro Valente, Appellant, v. The International Milling Company, Respondent.
    Second Department,
    April 26, 1907.
    Evidence—erroneous exclusion of contract of corporation.
    In an action to recover for services rendered to a corporation under a contract, it is error to exclude the contract which although not signed by the officers in their representative capacity recites that they were acting in their capacity as officers and that their act in entering into the contract was “on the exclusive account ” of the corporation, which act they were legally authorized to perform. Such agreement for services is a simple contract and does not require the corporate seal. .
    Appeal by the plaintiff, Alessandro Tálente, from á jüdgment of the Municipal Court of . the city of New York, borough of Brooklyn, in favor of the defendant, rendered on the 29th day of October, 1906.
    
      Samuel Wechsler, for the appellant.
    
      John MacGregor, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam :

The plaintiff sues the defendant corporation for salary, claiming under a contract with it. The trial court excluded the contract because it was not the contract of the corporation. It was signed by the president and the vice-president of defendant, although not in their representative capacity. In the body of the instrument it was, however, recited .that they were acting in the capacity of the ■ president and vice-president of the defendant, and that their act in entering into the contract was “on the exclusive account” of the defendant, which act they had been legally authorized to perform. The contract should have been received in evidence. ' The aereement was a simple contract and did' not require the corporate seal.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Hirsohberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Hooker and Gaynor, " JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.  