Sterling v. Jaudon
New York Supreme Court
THE plaintiffs made a contract with the defendants .to sell gold for them to the amount of $30,000. They had not the gold to deliver; but it was intended to sell it short, in expectation of a fall. The defendants made the sale; and notified the plaintiffs. A deposit was made with them, in the check of the firm, for $15,700, which the plaintiffs allege was to be placed to the plaintiffs’credit.
Read the full summary
THE plaintiffs made a contract with the defendants .to sell gold for them to the amount of $30,000. They had not the gold to deliver; but it was intended to sell it short, in expectation of a fall. The defendants made the sale; and notified the plaintiffs. A deposit was made with them, in the check of the firm, for $15,700, which the plaintiffs allege was to be placed to the plaintiffs’credit. About the 1st of-Nov ember the defendants gave notice to the plaintiffs that they would require some money the next day, "and a check for $4000 was paid them. The defendants afterwards gave notice that…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Ingraham, J.
The first point made by the plaintiffs is as to the right of the defendants to appropriate the money of the firm to the private account of Erasmus Sterling. It is very clear they would have no such authority without instructions so to do. Whether or not they had such orders at the- time the money was paid to them was to be decided by the jury on contradictory testimony. ■ They found for. the defendants, and such finding necessarily involves a finding that they had such instructions from Sterling when the money was paid. The question then is whether the judge.erred in…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Markham v. . JaudonNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Dike v. DrexelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Ent v. Evans, Lippincott & CunninghamOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1871
- Patterson v. Samuel B. Keys & Co.Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1870