Colgrove v. Tallman
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, on the report of a referee. Previous to, and on the 3d day of October, 1863, the defendants were copartners and doing "business as liquor mer-. chants in Syracuse, under the firm name of H. 0. Barnes & Co., and on that day as such copartners, executed to the plaintiff, in their firm name, their promissory note for $2,000 - payable to him or his order at their office, “ fifteen days demand after" date.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, on the report of a referee. Previous to, and on the 3d day of October, 1863, the defendants were copartners and doing "business as liquor mer-. chants in Syracuse, under the firm name of H. 0. Barnes & Co., and on that day as such copartners, executed to the plaintiff, in their firm name, their promissory note for $2,000 - payable to him or his order at their office, “ fifteen days demand after" date.” Afterward and about the 21st day' of .June, 1864, the defendant, Tallman, sold out his interest in the copartnership to the defendant, Barnes.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
— Foster, J.
There is no question, but that the report and judgment were erroneous in amount,, and that they include $30.47 to which the plaintiff was- not entitled; but the- judgment should not- he reversed and a new trial granted for' that reason alone; if the plaintiff stipulates to deduct that amount from the-judgment. .
There is quite as little doubt upon the- evidence, that the finding of fact, that the letter of Tallman to Golgrove. informing him that- Barnes was to pay the note and requesting hire *101to collect it at once, was received by Colgrove after the failure of Barnes…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Gourley v. TylerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1891
- Lazelle v. MillerOregon Supreme Court · 1902
- In re WyattNew York Supreme Court · 1893
- Millerd v. ThornNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Vernam v. HarrisNew York Supreme Court · 1874