Cunningham v. Littlefield
New York Court of Chancery
was a merchant at,Boston. The defendant, Nathaniel Littlefield, resided in New York, and was also a merchant. On the second of April one thousand eight hundred and' twenty-eight, the former wrote to the latter to purchase a quan-¡j-y 0f Mobile cotton on their joint account and ship it to him (Cunningham) at Boston, to be sold on such joint account, provided the defendant could purchase it at a limited price for his bill on the complainant at sixty days.
Read the full summary
was a merchant at,Boston. The defendant, Nathaniel Littlefield, resided in New York, and was also a merchant. On the second of April one thousand eight hundred and' twenty-eight, the former wrote to the latter to purchase a quan-¡j-y 0f Mobile cotton on their joint account and ship it to him (Cunningham) at Boston, to be sold on such joint account, provided the defendant could purchase it at a limited price for his bill on the complainant at sixty days. The defendant accordingly purchased and shipped thirty-five bales; and drew his bill on the complainant for the purchase money and interest,…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor.
The defendant resists the claim set up in this bill upon several grounds.
The first, and which I shall notice as being perhaps the most important, is, that the complainant, by his conduct, has made the debt his own; and has, therefore, no right to call upon the *106defendant to reimburse him. To make out this, the letters' which passed between the parties have been produced. In the grg^ jetter from the defendant to the complainant of the eighth of April, one thousand eight hundred and twenty eight, enclosing the bill of lading and invoice, he says, by way of advice or…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Smith v. LusherCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1825
- Peltier v. SewallNew York Supreme Court · 1829
3Cited by1 opinion
- Dillon v. DillonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1878