Sherwood v. . Stone
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
The defendants insisted on the trial that the responsibility of a factor upon a del credere commission could not be assumed by parol, but that such a contract fell within the terms and meaning of the statute of frauds. (2 R.S., 135, § 2, sub. 2.) The precise point was decided against the views of the defendants, inWolff v. Koppel (2 Denio, 368), by the late court for the correction of errors, affirming the decision of the supreme court in the same case. (5 Hill, 458.) The doctrine of the case in the supreme court, and the reasoning of Mr. J. Cowen, in the opinion of the court, are approved…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wolff v. KoppelNew York Supreme Court · 1845
3Cited by8 opinions
- Schell v. StephensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Conticommodity Services, Inc. v. HaltmierAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- Lewis v. BrehmeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1871
- Cartwright v. GreeneNew York Supreme Court · 1866
- Merrill v. ThomasNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1878
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.