Russell v. Nicoll
New York Supreme Court
f™8 was an action of assumpsit, tried at the New-York circuit, in March, 1828, before the Hon. Ogden Edwards, one of the circuit judges. The plaintiffs claimed damages for the non-delivery of a tiuantity of cotton alleged to have been purchased by them of the defendants.
Read the full summary
f™8 was an action of assumpsit, tried at the New-York circuit, in March, 1828, before the Hon. Ogden Edwards, one of the circuit judges. The plaintiffs claimed damages for the non-delivery of a tiuantity of cotton alleged to have been purchased by them of the defendants. The contract between the parties was made on the 9th February, 1825, at New-York, and is in these wor^s •" by Daniel Rapelye, for our account, to R. M. & J. Russell, five hundred bales of cotton, at sixteen and an half cents per pound. Said cotton was purchased for TT . . , , , \ . , our ac. at Huntsville, and is to be…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Marcy, J.
It was insisted on the argument that the contract declared on was within the statute of frauds, and void for not being reduced to writing, and signed as th& statute directs. This objection is not sustainable. If the contract be within the statute, it is very clear that the signing by the defendants is a compliance with its requirement. (Egerton v. Mathews and another, 6 East, 307. Sanderson v. Jackson and another, 2 Bos. Pul. 238.)
The main difficulty in this case is to determine the real-character of the contract. On the one hand, it is said to be, an actual and…
2Cited by31 opinions
- Justice v. . LangNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Worrall v. . MunnNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- Olyphant v. BakerNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Anderson v. . ReadNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Stokes v. BaarsSupreme Court of Florida · 1882
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.