Heuertematte v. . Morris
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, made October 27,1882, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict directed by the court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, made October 27,1882, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict directed by the court. (Reported below, 28 Hun, 77.) This action was brought upon defendant’s acceptance of a bill of exchange drawn upon him at ninety days by Ran Runnels of Rivas, in the State of Nicaragua, payable to the order of Hourquet & Poylo and by them indorsed before acceptance to plaintiffs. Defendant offered to show that the acceptance was made without consideration and was induced by fraudulent…
1Opinion of the Court
Bu&er, Ch. J.
In the discussion of this case it is unnecessary to consider particularly the agency of Hourquet & Poylo in the transaction, as they acted solely as the gratuitous agents of the plaintiffs, and had no interest in the subject of the business. It may, therefore, be'treated as a transaction occurring directly between the plaintiffs and Ban Bunnels, and concisely described, was to the following effect: The plaintiffs were merchants doing business at Panama, and one Ohristofel was a customer and debtor of theirs, residing at San Juan del Sur, near Bivas, in the State of Hicaraugua.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hoffman & Co. v. Bank of MilwaukeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
3Cited by63 opinions
- Utah Ex Rel. Div. of Foresty, Fire & State v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
- Olson v. Town of Cottage GroveWisconsin Supreme Court · 2008
- Arizona v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- A. Morrison & Co. v. Farmers & Merchants BankSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1900
- Mealey v. ArndtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.