Vanderburgh v. Hull & Bowne
New York Supreme Court
Error from the superior court of the city of-New-York. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Hull & Bowne against Vanderburgh, for iron castings.
Read the full summary
Error from the superior court of the city of-New-York. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Hull & Bowne against Vanderburgh, for iron castings. On the trial of the cause, Andrew Sherwood was called as a witness for the plaintiffs, who being sworn on his voire dire, testified that at the time of the making and delivery of the castings, he acted as the agent of the plaintiffs in the foundery conducted by them, at an annual salary of $300, which was guaranteed to him by the plaintiffs, and in addition to his salary, it was agreed that he should have one third the profits of the foundery,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Nelson, C. J.
It is perfectly clear, that Sherwood had not a joint interest with the plaintiffs in the foundery. The only ground upon which it was insisted that he was interested, and therefore incompetent as a witness, was that in addition to his salary, he was to have one third of the profits of the establishment, if any were made. The witness released all right to any profits, and thereby discharged his interest; and the only question is, whether he was a partner 1 On his voire dire, he declared, that by the agreement between him and the plaintiffs, he was not to be liable for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rogers v. Hosack's ExecutorsNew York Supreme Court · 1837
3Cited by29 opinions
- Richardson v. . HughittNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Burckle v. . EckhartNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
- Culver v. MarksIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Burckle v. EckartCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
- Burnett v. . SnyderNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.