Bell v. Holford
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an action, brought by the plaintiff, under an assignment from Edward Stainer, of an alleged cause of action, upon the following instrument executed by the defendants: “Whereas several suits are now pending in one or more Courts of Law and Equity in the State of Eew York and in other States in the United States of America, for the purpose of recovering certain claims or demands, or resisting certain claims or demands belonging to, or in which the Trustees of the…
Read the full summary
This was an action, brought by the plaintiff, under an assignment from Edward Stainer, of an alleged cause of action, upon the following instrument executed by the defendants: “Whereas several suits are now pending in one or more Courts of Law and Equity in the State of Eew York and in other States in the United States of America, for the purpose of recovering certain claims or demands, or resisting certain claims or demands belonging to, or in which the Trustees of the estate of the late firm of Stainer, Dutilh and Company are now interested, and in which said several suits so depending,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court. Duer J.
It was insisted, by the counsel for the plaintiff, that the agreement of the defendants, upon which this action is founded, contains two distinct independent stipulations—the first, binding them to satisfy the costs, damages, and charges arising from the pending suits, to which the agreement refers, out of the proceeds of the estate assigned to them; the second, an absolute unconditional promise of indemnity, rendering them liable as individuals, and not merely as trustees. This construction, however, has been rejected by the judge at Special Term, who has decided that…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Juliand v. RathboneNew York Supreme Court · 1862
- Barnard v. KobbeNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1869