Esselstyn v. McDonald
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendant, James P. McDonald, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Richmond on the 24th day of October, 1903, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 22d day of October, 1903, denying the said defendant's motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the defendant, James P. McDonald, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Richmond on the 24th day of October, 1903, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 22d day of October, 1903, denying the said defendant's motion for a new trial made upon the minutes. The action was based on a written contract of charter or lease of a dredge called the Rittenhouse Moore for use in the harbor of Portland, Me. The charter party read as follows: “ Agreement, made this…
1Opinion of the Court
Willard Bartlett, J.:
Although the written instrument by which the dredge was leased or chartered did not recite the name of James P. McDonald as a party, I think that upon affixing his signature and delivering the paper to the owner of the vessel he made himself a party and became bound as one of the lessees thereunder. (Thomas v. Gumaer, 7 Wend 43; Parks v. Brinkerhoff, 2 Hill, 663; Clark v. Rawson, 2 Den. 135; Perkins v. Goodman, 21 Barb. 218; Ex parte Fulton, 7 Cow. 484.) In these and similar cases the courts have held liable as parties to a contract persons who subscribed their names…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- First National Bank v. . DanaNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Blackmer v. DavisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Perkins v. GoodmanNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Ex parte FultonNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Ahrend v. OdiorneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Brush v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2012
- Schonberger v. CulbertsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
- Feigenbaum v. HizsnayAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
- Electric Carriage Call & Specialty Co. v. HermanNew York Supreme Court · 1910
- Federal Sign System v. BergerAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.