Blakiston v. Dudley
The Superior Court of New York City
The action was brought to recover damages for the wrongful refusal of the defendants to accept and pay a bill of exchange, drawn upon them by one Ackley, in favor of the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
The action was brought to recover damages for the wrongful refusal of the defendants to accept and pay a bill of exchange, drawn upon them by one Ackley, in favor of the plaintiffs. The complaint averred, in substance, that the defendants, in consideration that the plaintiffs, who are coal dealers in Philadelphia, would furnish to Ackley all the coal that, from time to time, he might require, for the purposes of a manufactory carried on by bim-, promised and agreed that they would accept and pay the drafts of Ackley for such coal, to be drawn on them in favor of the plaintiffs, and payable…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Duer, J.
We do not think it necessary to decide the questions to which the arguments of counsel, on the hearing before us, were chiefly directed, and which alone were raised upon the trial; namely, whether the promise of the defendants ought not to be regarded as collateral, and, therefore, void under the statute of frauds; and, whether, if the promise was valid, they were not discharged from its performance, by the alterations made, without their assent, in the terms of the contract between the plaintiffs and Ackley. In relation to these questions, we content ourselves with saying, that, in leaving…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hall v. CordellSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Flato v. MulhallSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Brinkman v. HunterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880