McDougall v. . Cooper
New York Court of Appeals
In the month of December, 1847, Addison Gardner, H. F. Sickles and Jeremiah Cooper entered into an arrangement or copartnership for the purchase of a quantity of wheat and flour, and for manufacturing and selling the same. The funds were furnished by Gardner and Cooper, principally by Gardner.
Read the full summary
In the month of December, 1847, Addison Gardner, H. F. Sickles and Jeremiah Cooper entered into an arrangement or copartnership for the purchase of a quantity of wheat and flour, and for manufacturing and selling the same. The funds were furnished by Gardner and Cooper, principally by Gardner. In February and March following, the business having been closed, Gardner and Cooper had settlements embracing the moneys paid out for purchase of the wheat and flour, and • expenses attending the same, and receipts of moneys on sales made. The principal business appears to have been done by the…
1Opinion of the Court
I do not think there is any force in the objections by the defendant that the summons is not for relief, but for the recovery of a specific sum of money. The judgment should not be reversed for that cause if it appears from the evidence that a case for relief was made out. The defendant had answered the complaint, and the referee in court could grant only relief consistent with the case made by the complaint and embraced within the issue. (See Code § 275, and Marquat v. Marquat, 2 Kern., 336.) The complaint alleged that there was a mistake in fact in the former accounting, and demanded a new…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kellogg v. RichardsNew York Supreme Court · 1835
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lawrence v. . American National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Brooks v. MooreNew York Supreme Court · 1872
- Russell & Co. v. StevensonWashington Supreme Court · 1904
- Ward v. CowdreyNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Ryan v. . WardNew York Court of Appeals · 1872