Rowland v. Phalen
The Superior Court of New York City
This action comes before the court, at general term, on an appeal by the defendants from an order, made by Mr. Justice Bosworth on the 26th of April 1856, over-ruling, in part, their demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint.
Read the full summary
This action comes before the court, at general term, on an appeal by the defendants from an order, made by Mr. Justice Bosworth on the 26th of April 1856, over-ruling, in part, their demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint. The complaint and demurrer, excluding the title of the action, and the fourth cause of action, are as follows: “David Rowland, plaintiff in this action, by Lee & Smidt; bis attorneys, in this his amended complaint, complains of James Phalen and Henry A. Coit; defendants, and says that, prior to the 5th. day of May, A.D. one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five, he was…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Woodruff, J.
It is unnecessary to enlarge upon the proposition that individuals may, if they think proper, bind themselves personally to the performance of-any engagement, although they are in truth acting on the behalf or for the benefit of others—and when, bn the face of an Instrument, they profess, in terms, to bind themselves, and neither, in terms nor by implication bind any other person, or if in form they bind themselves, then, whether any other is or is not also -bound, they are liable. In this complaint and in the agreement set-forth, the defendants are described as a Committee of Management of…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Stone v. WendoverMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
- Brown v. CherryNew York Supreme Court · 1868
- Brown v. CherryNew York Supreme Court · 1870
- Commonwealth v. CooperMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1862
- Ladd v. ArkellThe Superior Court of New York City · 1874
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.