McCartney v. Bostwick
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment entered at a special term, upon demurrer to the complaint. The complaint alleged that during the year 1856, the plaintiffs were copartners, doing business as such in the city of St. Louis, in the state of Missouri, as wholesale grocers and dealers in wines and liquors.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from a judgment entered at a special term, upon demurrer to the complaint. The complaint alleged that during the year 1856, the plaintiffs were copartners, doing business as such in the city of St. Louis, in the state of Missouri, as wholesale grocers and dealers in wines and liquors. That, as such copartners, they sold, and from time to time delivered, on various credits, various amounts of groceries, wines, liquors and merchandise, during the years 1856 and 1857, to the defendant Albion W. Bostwick, who was then a resident of and doing business at Winona, in the (now) state of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, E. Darwin Smith, J.
The case of Garfield v. Hatmaker (15 N. Y. Rep. 475) decides that where a grant for a valuable consideration is made to one person and the consideration therefor is paid by another, no interest, legal or equitable vests in or results to, the person paying the consideration, upon which a judgment and execution can attach. And *394it also decides that the trust which, under sec. 52, art. 2d, part 2, chap. 1 of the revised statutes, entitled “ Of uses and trusts,” (1 R. S. 728,) in such cases, where a fraudulent intent is not disproved, “results in favor of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Garfield v. . HatmakerNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Kirby v. SchoonmakerNew York Court of Chancery · 1848
3Cited by2 opinions
- Gorton v. MasseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1866
- Campbell v. Erie Railway Co.New York Supreme Court · 1866