Sutton v. Cronin
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an appeal from an order made at special teYm, overruling a demurrer to the complaint; which lattér is as follows: [Title of action.] “ The above nameá plaintiffs complain against the above named defendants as follows : " First.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from an order made at special teYm, overruling a demurrer to the complaint; which lattér is as follows: [Title of action.] “ The above nameá plaintiffs complain against the above named defendants as follows : " First. That at the several times hereinafter mentioned or referred to, the said plaintiffs were co-partners in business in the city of New York, under the firm name of Sutton, Smith & Co., and the defendants were co-partners in business in said city under the firm name of Cronin, Hurxthal & Sears. • Second. That on or about the 7th day of March, 1863, at the city of…
1Opinion of the Court
Robertson, Ch. J.
The breach of the two contracts- set out in the first three successive numbered paragraphs contained in the complaint, does not constitute the cause of action in this *505case, but merely forms the consideration for the third contract assumed to be entered into by means of acts and declarations of the parties set out in the fourth and fifth paragraphs. It, in substance, is, that in consideration that the plaintiffs would receive back from the defendants merchandize delivered by-them to the latter under the first of such contracts, and would sell to the government of the United…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hepburn v. Commissioners of the Exchange & Banking Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1849