Coffin v. President of the Grand Rapids Hydraulic Co.
The Superior Court of New York City
There are three actions, the facts in each of which are similar, except, as to date of the obligation, time when due, amount, and parties plaintiff, so that the questions involved in the three cases may be disposed of by the decision of one. The trial judge directed verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
There are three actions, the facts in each of which are similar, except, as to date of the obligation, time when due, amount, and parties plaintiff, so that the questions involved in the three cases may be disposed of by the decision of one. The trial judge directed verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs. In the first action for $83,096. In the second for $34,860, and in third for $1,985.40. The defendant appeals from the judgments entered on the verdicts, and from orders denying motions for a new trial. The opinion will be directed to the facts presented by the record in the first action, as…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—McAdam, J.
The issues were enough, and the complications attempted to be interjected into the case arise from an effort on the part of the defendant to litigate questions not raised by the pleadings nor germane to the controversy, before the court. This circumstance requires us to state the issues raised, that the propositions involved maybe intelligently understood.
The complaint alleges three causes of action, each based upon a promissory note.
The copartnership of the plaintiffs as bankers in the city of New York, under the firm name of Coffin & Stanton, was alleged and admitted…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Considerant v. . BrisbaneNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Jennings v. Grand Trunk RailwayNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Knapp v. . the City of BrooklynNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Newton v. . HarrisNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- Dunham v. . MannNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.