La Farge v. Kneeland
New York Supreme Court
Assumpsit; tried at the Mew York circuit, Movembei 9th> 1825, More Edwards, 0. Judge. The case at the trial was this: Bogert & Kneeland consigned 36 bales of cotton to the plaintiffs at Havre, in vember, 1818. One of the plaintiffs, La Farge, being in Mew-York, made an advance of 20 cents per pound, upon the cotton, then valued at 30 cents.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit; tried at the Mew York circuit, Movembei 9th> 1825, More Edwards, 0. Judge. The case at the trial was this: Bogert & Kneeland consigned 36 bales of cotton to the plaintiffs at Havre, in vember, 1818. One of the plaintiffs, La Farge, being in Mew-York, made an advance of 20 cents per pound, upon the cotton, then valued at 30 cents. The letter of *instructions from Bogert & Kneeland, informed the consignees, the plaintiffs, that the cotton was shipped for account of Messrs. Braham & Atwood, of Huntsville, Alabama; and expressed a hope and request that the cotton might not be sold at a…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per Savage, Ch. J.
The question first arising in the order of the trial, is, whether the statement of La Large before the tribunal of commerce, was properly received in evidence. I think it was not. It was the plaintiff’s own statement of their case; and could no more be introduced by them, than a bill in chancery by the complainant, after having read the answer. That, I believe, is never allowed. The defendant may, no doubt, introduce a document coming from the plaintiffs, by way of explaining what he has himself said, or put in as an answer; but to me it is a new mode of evidence, for…
2Cited by8 opinions
- National Park Bank of New York v. Seaboard BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Commonwealth ex rel. Bressler v. GaneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
- Parker v. GoldsmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
- County of Lewis v. TateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1847
- Bixby v. DrexelNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1879
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.