Butler v. Elliott
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROK. This was a bill in chancery for an account, discovery and payment, or surrender to the plaintiffs, of the balance in the hands of the defendants. The defendants, Elliott & Doolittle, made answer thereto ; and thereupon a committee was appointed to ascertain and report the facts. From these sources, the following statement is derived.
Read the full summary
IN ERROK. This was a bill in chancery for an account, discovery and payment, or surrender to the plaintiffs, of the balance in the hands of the defendants. The defendants, Elliott & Doolittle, made answer thereto ; and thereupon a committee was appointed to ascertain and report the facts. From these sources, the following statement is derived. On the 11th of April, 1837, Jarvis P. Bunce and Daniel P, Bunce, partners, under the firm of J. P. Bunce ⅜ Co., extensively engaged in the business of manufacturing carriages at New-Haven, and vending them in various parts of the United States, were…
1Opinion of the CourtWaite, J.
1. The principal question involved in this case, is, whether Elliott Doolittle are chargeable for the property received of Read Sp Williams, at the invoice price, or only for the net avails arising from the sale of the property.
*203It is apparent from the report of the committee, that if the latter rule is adopted, the plaintiffs have no claim upon them. For the net avails of all the property mortgaged to them, and received of Read Williams, together with all the interest in the real estate conveyed by the mortgage deed to the bank, will not be more than sufficient to remove the prior…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cowles v. WhitmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1834
- Woodruff v. WestcottSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1837
3Cited by2 opinions
- City National Bank v. StoeckelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Campion v. New Haven Board of Aldermen, No. Cv 02-0462505 S (Mar. 21, 2003)Connecticut Superior Court · 2003