Napier v. McLeod
New York Supreme Court
Demurrer to replication. This is an action of assumpsit for goods sold, &c. The defendant pleads that after the making of the promise, &c. to wit, on the 1st June, 1825, Rapelje, one of the plaintiffs, executed to him a release of all claims and demands.
Read the full summary
Demurrer to replication. This is an action of assumpsit for goods sold, &c. The defendant pleads that after the making of the promise, &c. to wit, on the 1st June, 1825, Rapelje, one of the plaintiffs, executed to him a release of all claims and demands. The plaintiffs reply precludi non, because they say that before the executing of the release, to wit, on the 16th February, 1824, Rapelje and Bennett, two of the plaintiffs, executed a certain deed or instrument in writing, whereby, after reciting that they, together with Napier the other plaintiff, had then lately traded together in…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Savage, Ch. J.
The only question in this case is, whether the power of attorney operated as an assignment to Napier of the interest of Rapelje and Bennett. If it did not, then each of them had the same interest in the partnership effects and in the debts due to the firm which Napier had; and then also it conferred on Napier no power which he did not possess without it. It might indeed be more satisfactory to the debtors of the firm, to know that the authority of the whole firm was concentrated in the person who was entrusted with the settlement of its concerns. The question,…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Huntington v. PotterNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- Parberry v. Johnson & Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1875
- Gordon v. FreemanIllinois Supreme Court · 1849
- Hilton v. . VanderbiltNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Riggen v. Investment Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1897
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.