Meehan v. . Forrester
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
The negotiation by which Bertine obtained the deed from the plaintiff was conducted wholly by Mr. Pinkney, the attorney of Bertine. There was no dealing on the subject between the plaintiff and Bertine, except through Pinkney. The evidence justifies the inference that the deed was received by Pinkney for Bertine, in pursuance of the agreement made between Pinkney and the plaintiff, and delivered by Pinkney to Bertine. The agency of Pinkney was to collect the debt, not to purchase lands. When, under those circumstances, Pinkney delivered to Bertine the deed obtained from the plaintiff, it was…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- May v. Le ClaireSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Hart v. EyckNew York Court of Chancery · 1816
- Horn v. . KeteltasNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
3Cited by30 opinions
- Mooney v. . ByrneNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Eadie, Guilford & Co. v. AshbaughSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- Hyatt v. . ClarkNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp. v. KarlenNew York Court of Appeals · 1971
- W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.