East New York & Jamaica Railroad v. Lighthall
The Superior Court of New York City
The action was brought to recover the amount of a subscription made by the defendant to the capital stock of the plaintiff. The defense was payment. It was proved that the subscription was made in July, 1866. The defendant testified that, about the 1st of November, one Degrauw, the president of the plaintiff’s company, came on board the cars at Jamaica and asked the defendant if he would sell him coal stock. The defendant replied he would, upon one condition.
Read the full summary
The action was brought to recover the amount of a subscription made by the defendant to the capital stock of the plaintiff. The defense was payment. It was proved that the subscription was made in July, 1866. The defendant testified that, about the 1st of November, one Degrauw, the president of the plaintiff’s company, came on board the cars at Jamaica and asked the defendant if he would sell him coal stock. The defendant replied he would, upon one condition. That he owed the plaintiff $1000, and wanted to pay it for some time, and would sell the coal stock on that condition at the same price…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Monell, J.
The question which was submitted to the jury in this case was, whether Degrauw agreed with the defendant to receive the coal stock in payment for his subscription; and they were instructed that .if they so found, the agreement was binding upon the plaintiff.
If it was proper to submit such question to the jury, their verdict cannot be disturbed. The evidence was conflicting, and therefore not open for review upon these appeals.
But it is claimed that, notwithstanding Degrauw’s agreement, the receipt of the coal stock by him was not payment to the plaintiff, for two…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Curtis and Others v. . LeavittNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- The City Bank of Columbus v. . Bruce and FoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- De Groff v. . American Linen Thread CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Clark v. Metropolitan BankThe Superior Court of New York City · 1854
- Magee v. Badger & PotterNew York Supreme Court · 1859
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Muntz v. Algiers & G. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1905
- Pecquet v. Pecquet'sSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1865