Grinnell, Minturn & Co. v. Suydam
The Superior Court of New York City
This cause was brought to a hearing on the bill, and the answers of the several defendants. The facts, so far as they need be stated for the determination of the cause, were briefly as follows: In the month of June, 1847, Edward J. Mann agreed to purchase of Suydam, Sage & Co. one half interest in a large quantity of flour about to be shipped from Mew York to London, and to make advances to them on the other half.
Read the full summary
This cause was brought to a hearing on the bill, and the answers of the several defendants. The facts, so far as they need be stated for the determination of the cause, were briefly as follows: In the month of June, 1847, Edward J. Mann agreed to purchase of Suydam, Sage & Co. one half interest in a large quantity of flour about to be shipped from Mew York to London, and to make advances to them on the other half. He then applied to the plaintiffs, merchants in Mew York, to cash his bills on London to the amount of £5,000, or thereabouts, and to secure them by indorsing over the bills of…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Mason, J.
It is not pretended in this case, that there was any privity of contract between the plaintiffs and Suydam, Sage & Co. The transaction out of which the claim originated, was between the plaintiffs and Edward J. Mann. The negotiation was with him alone, and the money was advanced to him on security which he furnished. Suydam, Sage & Co, *135appear not to have had anything to do with the loan made by the plaintiffs. They came under no obligation with regard to it, nor is it anywhere alleged that it was made on their credit. On the contrary, the plaintiffs stipulated for the possession and control…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Walker v. KingSupreme Court of Vermont · 1872