Mills v. Hunt
New York Supreme Court
Error from the supreme court. Hunt brought an action in the ■ífew-York common pleas for the non-delivery of goods purchased by him at a sale by the -defendants as auctioneers-, the terms of sale were approved endorsed paper at six months for sums over $100, and under that amount cash, without discount.
Read the full summary
Error from the supreme court. Hunt brought an action in the ■ífew-York common pleas for the non-delivery of goods purchased by him at a sale by the -defendants as auctioneers-, the terms of sale were approved endorsed paper at six months for sums over $100, and under that amount cash, without discount. The plaintiff purchased five parcels, which were separately struck off to him, and amounted together to the sum of $224.40. A bill of parcels was delivered to the plaintiff, headed ££ L. J. Hunt, bought of Mills, Brothers & Co.” the latter being the name of the defendants’ firm, and he was…
1Opinion of the Court
After advisement, the following opinions were delivered :
By the Chancellor.
The sale of the several articles in this case was made by Mills, Brothers & Co. and. the bill of parcels made out in their copartnership name, without disclosing the fact that they were acting as the agents for others. The mere fact that they were auctioneers, was not sufficient notice to the purchaser that they were not selling their own goods. Jones v. Littledale, 1 New. & Perry’s R. 677. In the case of Magee v. Atkinson, 2 Mees. & Wels. R. 440, where the broker had sent in a note of the sale to the purchaser in his…
2Cited by31 opinions
- Baltzen v. . NicolayNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Thomas Gordon Malting Co. v. Bartels Brewing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Meyer v. . RedmondNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Bush v. . ColeNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- Hicks v. HindeNew York Supreme Court · 1850
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.