Callanan v. Van Vleck
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The only point in controversy was whether the defendants, under the facts of the case, were entitled to charge against the firm of A. J. Stevens & Co., of which the plaintiffs were the partners and are the assignees, the sum of $6400, expended for the purchase of the notes or bills of the Agricultural Bank of Tennessee, and by them remitted to said firm.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The only point in controversy was whether the defendants, under the facts of the case, were entitled to charge against the firm of A. J. Stevens & Co., of which the plaintiffs were the partners and are the assignees, the sum of $6400, expended for the purchase of the notes or bills of the Agricultural Bank of Tennessee, and by them remitted to said firm. The facts in regard to the transaction are these: Prior to June 1st, 1857, Andrew J. Stevens was engaged in business of banking, at Port Des Moines, Iowa, under the name of A. J.…
1Opinion of the CourtClebke, J.
The only question here is, whether the defendants were justified in continuing to make the appropriations after the formation of the new firm, which Stevens had authorized them to make some time before, when he was the only member of the firm of A. J. Stevens & Co.
Under ordinary circumstances, the authority thus given by Stevens would not he sufficient to justify the defendants in continuing these appropriations, without a renewed authorization by the new firm. It would have been the duty of the defendants, on being informed of the change in the concern, to inquire of the new firm whether…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Foster v. . BookwalterNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Hoppock v. MosesNew York Court of Appeals · 1872