Birckhead & Carlisle v. William, George, John A., James & Stewart Brown
New York Supreme Court
Error to the superior court of the city of New-York, where Birckhead & Carlisle, survivors of Parker, sued the five Browns and .Nicholson in assumpsit; and the following facts, with others which need not be stated, were found by special verdict.
Read the full summary
Error to the superior court of the city of New-York, where Birckhead & Carlisle, survivors of Parker, sued the five Browns and .Nicholson in assumpsit; and the following facts, with others which need not be stated, were found by special verdict. At the time of the transactions in question the plaintiffs, with Parker, were co-partners in trade, doing business at Bio de Janeiro under the firm of Birckhead & Co.: the defendants were co-partners in trade doing business in the city of New-York, under the firm of Brown,, Brothers & Co.; and W. J. Brown & Co. was a commercial house doing business in…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Bronson, J.
As the defendants are not in any way parties to the three bills drawn by Demarest on the *638house of W. & J. Brown & Co. of Liverpool, the plaintiffs have grounded their action on the letters of credit which the defendants gave to Smith & Town. It appears from the special verdict that the advances of the Liverpool house to Smith & Town, at the time these bills were presented for acceptance, amounted to nearly £27,000 sterling, or nearly twice the amount of credit created by the letters; but at the time the bills were protested for non-payment, the uncovered acceptances…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Watson's Executors v. McLarenNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Adams, Cunningham & Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Dobbin v. BradleyNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Lamourieux v. HewitNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Lawrason v. MasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1806
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.