Whitney v. Groot
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit on a guarranty, dated 8th November, 1836, in these words : “ Messrs. Whitney & Schuyler, Gentlemen : We consider Mr. James L. Van Eps good for all he may want of you, (and we will sell him all he reasonably ask of us on credit,) and we will [indemnify the same.” Signed, “ Sanders & Groot.”
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit on a guarranty, dated 8th November, 1836, in these words : “ Messrs. Whitney & Schuyler, Gentlemen : We consider Mr. James L. Van Eps good for all he may want of you, (and we will sell him all he reasonably ask of us on credit,) and we will [indemnify the same.” Signed, “ Sanders & Groot.” The defendant was a member of the firm of Sanders f Groot, the plaintiffs were wholesale grocery dealers in the city of Albany, and Van Eps was a grocer in the city Schenectady. On the day of the date of the guaranty, Van Eps purchased goods of the plaintiffs, upon the…
1Opinion of the Court
*By the Court,
Nelson, Ch. J.
1. The instrument is certainly imperfect and obscure ; and it is surprising business men should have parted with their goods upon the strength of it, before explanation. I am inclined, however, to think we are bound to understand the effect of it to be as an indemnity to the plaintiffs for the goods they should deliver to Yan Eps. The intervening terms as to credit to be extended by Sanders & Groot ought to be read as included in a parenthesis ; upon any other *84view the instrument is unmeaning. It was therefore admissible under the first count, and perhaps under…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gard v. StevensMichigan Supreme Court · 1864
- Chamberlain v. . PrattNew York Court of Appeals · 1865