Packard v. Hill
New York Supreme Court
The plaintiffs, Packard and three others, declared against the defendants, for that the plaintiffs, being partners under the firm, of Packard & Growen, certain differences arose be tween them, acting as agents of the defendants, as therein after mentioned, and one Otzen, concerning the freight and average on a cargo of iron, landed from the Swedish ship Fortuna, of which Otzen was captain, at ^Havana; that thereupon, in consideration that the plaintiffs would continue the…
Read the full summary
The plaintiffs, Packard and three others, declared against the defendants, for that the plaintiffs, being partners under the firm, of Packard & Growen, certain differences arose be tween them, acting as agents of the defendants, as therein after mentioned, and one Otzen, concerning the freight and average on a cargo of iron, landed from the Swedish ship Fortuna, of which Otzen was captain, at ^Havana; that thereupon, in consideration that the plaintiffs would continue the defendants! agents, &c., the defendants bound themselves to save the plaintiffs harmless from any costs, damages and…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per Savage, Ch. J.
A preliminary objection is raised, to both the argument on the demurrer, and the motion to set aside the nonsuit; on the ground that the plaintiff is out of court, being nonsuited. The case of Snow v. Como, (1 Str. 407,) is relied on by the defendants’ counsel In that case, there was a demurrer to one count, and an issue on the other; and the venire was awarded, as well to try the issue, as to assess contingent damages upon the demurrer. The plaintiff was nonsuited upon the issue; and the chief justice, (Sir John Pratt,) would not go on to assess the damages; saying…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Currie v. HenryNew York Supreme Court · 1807
- Gardere v. Columbian InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Delafield v. HandNew York Supreme Court · 1808
- Graham v. CammannNew York Supreme Court · 1804
3Cited by12 opinions
- Barber v. International Co. of MexicoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1901
- Renick v. LudingtonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1882
- Taranow v. BroksteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Karns v. KunkleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1858
- Maloney v. DowsNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1859
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.