Wright v. Ames
New York Court of Appeals
This is an appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the fifth district, ■ affirming a judgment entered on the report of a referee. The action was brought by plaintiff, as assignee of the firm of J. & I. Lewis, to recover an alleged balance of the proceeds of the sales of certain wheat, alleged to have been sold by defendants, for and on behalf of J. & I. Lewis, on commission..
Read the full summary
This is an appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the fifth district, ■ affirming a judgment entered on the report of a referee. The action was brought by plaintiff, as assignee of the firm of J. & I. Lewis, to recover an alleged balance of the proceeds of the sales of certain wheat, alleged to have been sold by defendants, for and on behalf of J. & I. Lewis, on commission.. The facts as found-by the -referee are substantially as follows: In 1856-7 the firm of J. & I. Lewis were produce dealers at Oswego, the firm consisting of J. & I. Lewis and William Lewis, "who was a silent partner…
1Opinion of the CourtDavis, J.
When the defendants drew their orders on the Empire Elevator for the delivery to Ames & Sloan of 2,624 bushels of the cargo of the S. J. Holley, and 1,000 bushels of the cargo of the northern Belle, there was none of the latter, and but 476 bushels of the former remaining in store. The deficiency had long previously been surreptitiously taken out by Wm. Lewis ; and Bathbun & Lewis, the owners of the elevator, committed an additional fraud by delivering to Ames & Sloan, who were the agents of defendants, 3,150 bushels of the wheat of J. & I. Lewis.
There was no pretense of a sale of this wheat,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- N. Rogers & Sons v. BatchelorSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
3Cited by1 opinion
- The Atlantic Dock Company v. . LibbyNew York Court of Appeals · 1871