Bulkley & Wheeler v. Dayton
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration counts on a promissory note, for gobds sold and delivered, and the common money counts.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration counts on a promissory note, for gobds sold and delivered, and the common money counts. At the trial, at the Washington circuit, in 1817, the plaintiffs -sought to recover on the promissory note mentioned in the on certain agreements, respecting the sale and of goods, and on a demand for money had and received by the defendants, as the agents of the plaintiffs, in the sale, in Canada, of a quantity of lard, which had been intrusted by the plaintiffs to the care and disposal of the defendants. A variety .of evidence was produced on both sides,…
1Per curiam
Upon the argument of this case, several questions were raised and discussed, which it will be unnecessary now to notice, as we think the cause must be sent back to another trial,, because Bowker, a witness offered on the part of the plaintiff, was excluded, after being released. The objection to the release, that it was not executed by both the plaintiffs, was not well founded; one partner may release a debt due to the firm. It is a general principle of law, that when two have a joint personal interest, the release of one hairs the other. (3 Johns. Rep. 70., and cases there cited.) Nor was…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Halsey v. FairbanksU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1826
- Linsley v. LovelySupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
- The PeytonaU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1854
- Morse v. BellowsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1835
- Beatson v. HarrisSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.