Bonsteel v. Vanderbilt & Drew
New York Supreme Court
THIS action was brought to recover damages of the defendants, for not conveying the plaintiff from New York to California, in the year 1852, according to agreement.
Read the full summary
THIS action was brought to recover damages of the defendants, for not conveying the plaintiff from New York to California, in the year 1852, according to agreement. The pleadings, and the facts proved on the trial, were very similar to those in the case of Briggs v. Vanderbilt fy Drew, (19 Barb. 222.) The action was tried before Justice Watson and a jury, at the Ulster circuit, in July, 1853. On the trial the counsel for the plaintiff read in evidence a stipulation, signed by the attorney for the defendants Vanderbilt & Drew, by which it was admitted that an advertisement of which the annexed…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.
I think the defendants were not partners in the business of conveying passengers from New York to San Francisco. There were three separate and distinct divisions of the line j one from New York to San Juan del Norte -; another from the latter place-to San-Juan del Sud, and a third from the place last named to San Francisco. Allen sold the plaintiff three tickets, and sold each as the agent of the owner of one part of the line. The money paid for the tickets was not divided among the defendants according to the number of miles each was to convey, the plaintiff, but each defendant received the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Briggs v. VanderbiltNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Niles v. CulverNew York Supreme Court · 1850
3Cited by1 opinion
- Medvecz v. ChoiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977