Beakes v. . Dacunha
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of tlie General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made December 29,1890, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered upon the report of a referee and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. This tyas an action upon a guaranty. In November, 1886, the plaintiffs, as copartners, were dealers in millr in Delaware county, under the name of George E. Beakes.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of tlie General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made December 29,1890, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered upon the report of a referee and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. This tyas an action upon a guaranty. In November, 1886, the plaintiffs, as copartners, were dealers in millr in Delaware county, under the name of George E. Beakes. Chester L. Ketcham was a retail dealer in milk in the city of New York, who had been dealing in plaintiffs’ milk. Desiring to continue his dealings…
1Opinion of the CourtEarl, J.
The written guaranty, upon its face, appears to be for the benefit of George E. Beaices individually, and not for the benefit of any firm, and hence the defendant claims that the plaintiffs, as copartners, cannot have the benefit of the guaranty, and his counsel relies upon the case of Barnes v. Barrow (61 N. Y. 39). But this case is clearly distinguishable from that. There was evidence sufficient, although- quite slight, to show that the defendant’s testator, at the time he executed the guaranty, knew that the plaintiffs were copartners doing business under the firm name of George E. Beakes,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Barns v. . BarrowNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Church v. . BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
3Cited by41 opinions
- Halloran v. Virginia Chemicals Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Merrimac Chemical Co. v. MooreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Sweeney v. Morey & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Schott v. Continental Auto Insurance UnderwritersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
- Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Jaybert Esso Service Station, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1968
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.