Hall v. Leigh
Supreme Court of the United States
This case is so fully stated in the opinion of the court that it is deemed unnecessary to add more than that Harper and Pinkney, for the plaintiff in error, did not argue the case, as there was no appearance for the defendants in error, but simply stated, thát they contended that the separate instructions of each owner severed the joint interest, and cited 1 Esp. 117, and Watson on Partnership 233-34.
1Opinion of the Court
Livingston, J.,
delivered the of the court, as follows : — This cause comes here on a writ of error to the *■ Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Maryland. This action was brought by the plaintiff, who was also plaintiff below, to recover the proceeds of one hundred bags of cotton, which had been shipped to the defendants, and by them sold on commission.
At the trial, it appeared, that the plaintiff, together with William Potts & Co., in 1807, made a joint shipment of two hundred bales of cotton to the address of the defendants, who resided at Liverpool, to make sale thereof…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Shipman v. Straitsville Central Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Frank J. Abel, Individually and D/B/A Dal-Air and Frank J. Abel Trust v. Brayton Flying Service, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1957
- Clarkson v. EdesNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- Pitts v. CraneOregon Supreme Court · 1925
- Levin v. GoodmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1927
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.