Olcott v. . Tioga Railroad Company
New York Court of Appeals
These actions were tried before the same referee, and argued in this court together. Though the causes of action were entirely distinct, the evidence was, in a great measure,' the same, and the questions presented for decision to some extent the same, in both actions. It is, therefore, convenient to present them together.
Read the full summary
These actions were tried before the same referee, and argued in this court together. Though the causes of action were entirely distinct, the evidence was, in a great measure,' the same, and the questions presented for decision to some extent the same, in both actions. It is, therefore, convenient to present them together. The,first action was brought to recover the amount of a bill of exchange, of which this is a copy: “ Office of the Tioga Navigation Company, “ Philadelphia, May 19, 1841. “Dolls. 9,064-Ay. Twelve months after date, pay to the order of Messrs. Rogers, Ketchum and Grosvenor,…
1Opinion of the CourtSelden, J.
The referee has found, as a fact, that the draft upon which the first action was brought was executed by the defendant; and that finding includes an affirmation of the authority of Wilson, the president of the company, to make the draft in its behalf. If there was any evidence proper to be considered by the referee, tending to sustain this finding, sufficient to justify the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the-complaint, the'finding cannot be disturbed on appeal to this court. I -think there was not only some evidence to justify the conclusion of the referee, but do not see how he…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Bank of United States v. DandridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Curtis and Others v. . LeavittNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Hoyt v. . Thompson'sNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- McCullough v. MossCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1846
- Munn v. President & Directors of Commission Co.New York Supreme Court · 1818
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by69 opinions
- Smith v. . KiddNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Hoyle v. Plattsburgh & Montreal RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Edwards v. ThomasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America v. Fairbanks Steam Shovel Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1925
- Bibb v. Hall & FarleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.