Boyce v. . Brockway
New York Court of Appeals
This action was brought for the conversion of a quantity of butter. It was tried at the Schoharie Circuit in November, 1858, before Mr. Justice Gould and a jury. It appeared, on the trial that in the fall of 1856 the plaintiffs were engaged as partners in the purchase of butter. That one Brown was employed in purchasing butter at Summit for the defendant, but at times when defendant stopped him from purchasing on his account, he bought as agent for plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
This action was brought for the conversion of a quantity of butter. It was tried at the Schoharie Circuit in November, 1858, before Mr. Justice Gould and a jury. It appeared, on the trial that in the fall of 1856 the plaintiffs were engaged as partners in the purchase of butter. That one Brown was employed in purchasing butter at Summit for the defendant, but at times when defendant stopped him from purchasing on his account, he bought as agent for plaintiffs. The butter in question was bought by Brown for plaintiffs. It was in firkins, marked “ S. V. B.,” which were. the initials of the…
1Opinion of the CourtDavis, J.
The offer to show that one of the plaintiffs had assigned his interest in the cause of action and was not then the owner thereof, was properly excluded. That fact, if proved, would not affect the right to proceed with the action (Code, § 121), nor would it present any question for the jury. The offer also to show that “ the plaintiffs, other them Mattice” were not partners, was properly excluded. Evidence had been given to show that all the plaintiffs were partners ■ in, or joint owners of the butter in question, and the offer , should have been directed to that fact. It was quite immaterial…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Covill v. Hill & SanfordNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Connah v. HaleNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Everett v. CoffinNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Schroeppel v. CorningNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Allen v. CraryNew York Supreme Court · 1833
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by78 opinions
- Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Laverty v. . SnethenNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Pease v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Pierpoint v. HoytNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
- American Honda Finance Corp. v. Cilek (In Re Cilek)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1990
73 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.