Jessop v. Miller
New York Court of Appeals
White was a manufacturer of steel, and purchased, or negotiated with plaintiffs, to purchase from them .the steel now in suit, and in consequence of their negotiation, they sent the steel to his factory. White broke and partly manufactured the steel, and subsequently failed, and made an assignment of all his property to Miller and Furguson, the other defendants.
Read the full summary
White was a manufacturer of steel, and purchased, or negotiated with plaintiffs, to purchase from them .the steel now in suit, and in consequence of their negotiation, they sent the steel to his factory. White broke and partly manufactured the steel, and subsequently failed, and made an assignment of all his property to Miller and Furguson, the other defendants. The plaintiffs then commenced this action to regain the steel, and took proceedings of claim and delivery, as a- provisional remedy under the Code of Procedure, for that purpose. The papers in the suit were delivered to the sheriff…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Mullin, J.
The first alleged error presented by the record in this case is the admission of Stagg as a witness for the plaintiff, he being, as it is claimed, a person for whose immediate benefit the action is prosecuted, having signed the undertaking required by the Code to be given in proceedings for the claim and delivery of property.
Stagg could derive no benefit whatever from the suit, except by being released from his undertaking. He had an interest which, under the former practice, would have excluded him from being a witness, until another undertaking had been substituted.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Ballard v. . BurgettNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Seymour v. . WilsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Smith v. . LynesNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- Leven v. SmithCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
- Haggerty v. PalmerNew York Court of Chancery · 1822
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.