Westcott v. King
New York Supreme Court
The complaint set forth in totidem verbis the following bond or specialty: “ Whereas Truman Root and Franklin Hoag, of Saratoga Springs, on the thirteenth day of October last past, purchased of George Ferris his stock in trade situated at Sara-toga Springs aforesaid, among which were various goods, wares, and merchandise, an inventory of which is hereto annexed, marked A, amounting to three hundred forty-nine dollars and seventy three cents, which were purchased by the said…
Read the full summary
The complaint set forth in totidem verbis the following bond or specialty: “ Whereas Truman Root and Franklin Hoag, of Saratoga Springs, on the thirteenth day of October last past, purchased of George Ferris his stock in trade situated at Sara-toga Springs aforesaid, among which were various goods, wares, and merchandise, an inventory of which is hereto annexed, marked A, amounting to three hundred forty-nine dollars and seventy three cents, which were purchased by the said George Ferris of the firm, consisting of Joel N. Hayes and John L. Heyer of the city of New-York, and among which were…
1Opinion of the CourtHand, J.
The interests of the two firms, represented by King and Hays, were distinct; and the schedules of the goods which each had sold were annexed to the bond; by the last clause of which, it is stated to be “ understood and declared,” that the moneys that Hayes and King shall be obliged to pay Root & Hoag, and also in case of any liability created against them, they shall pay in proportion to the “ respective amounts *37of the goods as aforesaid, by them severally sold, in their firm names, to the said Root &, Hoag.”
But, by the bond, Hayes, King and Westcott declare they are held and firmly bound to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. BrownNew York Supreme Court · 1828
3Cited by1 opinion
- California Trucking Association v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local 70, Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local 70Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982