Cardell v. . McNiel
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Supreme Court. Action, on a verbal undertaking, that a chattel note was good and collectable, which had been delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff, in part payment for a horse, and by which the maker, one Cornell, promised to pay $125, “in a top buggy, worth the amount above stated, to be paid on the 29th day of June next; dated May 5th, 1854,” and that the same would be paid when due.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court. Action, on a verbal undertaking, that a chattel note was good and collectable, which had been delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff, in part payment for a horse, and by which the maker, one Cornell, promised to pay $125, “in a top buggy, worth the amount above stated, to be paid on the 29th day of June next; dated May 5th, 1854,” and that the same would be paid when due. The trial was before a referee, who ordered judgment for the plaintiff; which having been affirmed at general term in the fifth district, the defendant appealed to this court. The facts…
1Opinion of the Court
Comstock, Ch. J.
The contract for the sale of the plaintiff’s horse to the defendant, was concluded on the part of the latter by his agent, Acker. The agent acted under a written authority contained in a note addressed by the defendant to'the plaintiff, stating that any bargain which Acker might make, would be satisfactory to him, the defendant. This was a general authority, and very plainly it justified the agent in making the engagement on which this suit was brought.
By the terms of the contract, as testified to by the plaintiff’s witness, Greenfield, and as found by the referee, the horse…
2Cited by24 opinions
- Ten Eyck v. . CraigNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Ladue v. Detroit & Milwaukee RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1865
- Bruce v. . BurrNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Kiernan v. KratzOregon Supreme Court · 1902
- Newcomb v. . HaleNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.