Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jones v. Gould

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 15, 1912No. 2Published

Appeal from a judgment entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 19th day of January, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order entered on the same day, denying a motion for a new trial.

1Dissent

Ingraham, P. J. (dissenting):

When this case was before this court on a former appeal (133 App. Div. 336) we held that the defendants were not individually liable, upon the ground that if the contract was made by the defendant Ramsey as the agent of a disclosed principal within the scope of his authority, the principal, and not the agent, was liable for a breach of the contract. See, also, Jones v. Ramsey, No. 1 (127 App. Div. 704), where we applied the saíne principle in another action between the same parties to recover for a breach of the same contract upon which the plaintiff has recovered…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hawley v. . KeelerNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
  2. Jones v. . GouldNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
  3. In re the City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
  4. Jones v. RamseyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
  5. Johnson v. . HawsNew York Court of Appeals · 1901

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API