Goldmark v. Magnolia Metal Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
.• Appeal by the defendant, the Magnolia Metal Company, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 9th day of. February, 1898, as denies- the said defendant’s motion to vacate an attachment heretofore granted in the action.
Read the full summary
.• Appeal by the defendant, the Magnolia Metal Company, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 9th day of. February, 1898, as denies- the said defendant’s motion to vacate an attachment heretofore granted in the action. In September, 1890, the Magnolia Anti-Friction Metal Company, upon sufficient consideration, promised to pay to the plaintiff one cent per pound on all sales of magnolia metal in Austria and Italy for a period of five years thereafter. These sales were to be made…
1Opinion of the Court
O’Brien, J.:
■ The proof as to the amount due, which is based upon the sale of metal in Italy and Austria, is founded upon information which the *266plaintiff says lie obtained from the Magnolia Anti-Friction Metal Company of Great Britain, and their bookkeeper, one Watson, which firm, the plaintiff states, was the agent of the appellant. The latter criticises the sufficiency of such statements as competent proof of the facts, upon the ground that the plaintiff does not show how he knew that the London firm were its agents, and does not state from what particular member of the firm, in addition to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Austin v. Tecumseh National BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- City Nat'l Bk. of Poughkeepsie v. . PhelpsNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Reed Bros. Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Weeping Water.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- Metropolitan National Bank v. ClaggettSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Williams v. ColbyNew York Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by12 opinions
- Bernstein v. Van Heyghen Freres Societe AnonymeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
- Jones v. Hygienic Soap Granulator Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- Armstrong & Co. v. IrizarrySupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1921
- Zenith Bathing Pavilion, Inc. v. Fair Oaks Steamship Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
- Goldmark v. Magnolia Metal Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.