Sewall v. Fitch
New York Supreme Court
Assumpsit to recover damages for not delivering a quantity of cut nails to the plaintiffs, pursuant to the de fendant’s agreement.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit to recover damages for not delivering a quantity of cut nails to the plaintiffs, pursuant to the de fendant’s agreement. The cause was tried at the New York circuit, March 25th, 1826, before Duke, 0. Judge, who sealed a bill of exceptions at the request of the defendants, presenting the following facts : Greele, a commission merchant, not a broker, the authorized agent of the plaintiffs, but without disclosing ° 1 c' their names, contracted for 800 casks of Thames manufact01T cut na^s> at 5 1-2 cents per pound, with a clerk of the defendants, in February, 1825. The clerk told him…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per Savage, Oh. J.
That the defendants, although agents for the Thames company, might contract on their own account, there can be no doubt; and the verdict of the jury has so found that fact. Whether the verdict be against evidence, is not a proper question upon this bill of exceptions. It must, therefore, stand, unless the judge erred in some of his decisions, which were excepted to.
To the competency of the witness, Greele, there is no objection, except his interest, and the question I apprehend, is not whether he might be interested in the contract *when made; but has he an interest…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bennett v. HullNew York Supreme Court · 1813
- Hallett v. HolmesNew York Supreme Court · 1820
3Cited by19 opinions
- Goddard v. BinneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Cooke v. . MillardNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Cason v. Thomas Cheely & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1849
- Meincke v. FalkWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Passaic Manufacturing Co. v. HoffmanNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1871
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.