Dunlevy v. . Tallmadge
New York Court of Appeals
This cause was heard on an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court, at General Term, affirming the decision of the Special Term. The facts sufficiently appear in.the opinion of this court, as delivered by Weight, J.
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
In the winter of 1852, the defendants, John J. Tallmadge, Ralph L. Howell and Henry 0. Bowers, were copartners in the forwarding and transportation business on the canals of the State, having offices at Buffalo and at Hew York. The firm was the owner of a line of canal boats and other personal property. The business was conducted at Buffalo under the name of Bowers, Tallmadge & Go.; at Hew York under the name of R. L. Howell & Co.; and the firm had also a connection with one Isaacs, at Oswego, in the warehousing and shipping business, under the name of Bowers, Isaacs & Co. On the 30th…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Beck v. BurdettNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
- McElwain v. WillisCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1832
- Wiggins v. ArmstrongNew York Court of Chancery · 1816
- Child v. BraceNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
- Watson v. RenwickNew York Court of Chancery · 1820
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Quarl v. AbbettIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- National Tube Works Co. v. BallouSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Adsit v. . ButlerNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Reyburn v. MitchellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Briggs v. . OliverNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.