Van Alen v. Vanderpool
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained two special counts, besides the general counts. 1. That the defendants, on the 30th November, 1807, were common carriers of goods, for profit, from Schodack to the city of New-York, and from New-York to Schodack, by water, in the sloop Caty Maria, and for a reward.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained two special counts, besides the general counts. 1. That the defendants, on the 30th November, 1807, were common carriers of goods, for profit, from Schodack to the city of New-York, and from New-York to Schodack, by water, in the sloop Caty Maria, and for a reward. That the plaintiffs were possessed of 300 bushels of wheat, of the value of 400 dollars, and at the special instance and request of the- defendants, delivered the wheat to the defendants, to be by them safely conveyed from Schodack to New-York, for a reasonable…
1Per curiam
The testimony in the case does nqt warrant the ground taken at the trial, that here was *72a sale of the wheat to three of the defendants. The noilsuit was granted on the assumption that there had been a sa]e three only of the defendants, and that this eviJ dence did not correspond with the contract declared on. This may be the import of the parol testimony, but the receipts given by, or in behalf of all the defendants, subsequent to the loose conversation alluded to by the witnesses, are a higher species of evidence, and ought to control the other. ^According to the receipts, the wheat was…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Griffin v. LarnedIllinois Supreme Court · 1884
- Spielter v. North German Lloyd Steamship Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
- Leverick v. MeigsNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- M. M. Walker Co. v. Dubuque Fruit & Produce Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1901
- Corlies v. CummingNew York Supreme Court · 1826
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.