Towsley v. Denison
New York Supreme Court
THIS action was commenced more than six years after the cause thereof accrued, to recover the value of certain stone, alleged to have been sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants, in the fall of the year 1854, and for damages to, and loss of boats used in the delivery of the stone.
Read the full summary
THIS action was commenced more than six years after the cause thereof accrued, to recover the value of certain stone, alleged to have been sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants, in the fall of the year 1854, and for damages to, and loss of boats used in the delivery of the stone. The defendant Fox, in the year. 1854, took a contract from the state to do some work at Mud lock, and at Montezuma, on the Erie canal The defendant Denison was his surety on a hail bond to the laborers for their security. After the work was commenced, in the fall of 1854, the defendant Fox failed, and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, E. Darwin Smith, J.
The contract in question in this action was needlessly under seal. It was such a contract as the defendant Fox, if he and the other defendants were partners or jointly interested in the subject matter of the agreement, might properly make, like any simple contract, without seal or any express authority. But there is abundant evidence, I think, to support the finding of the referee that the defendant Denison, if he did not authorize Fox to make such contract and sign it for him, afterwards knew of the contract or that Fox had made a contract with the plaintiff…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Anding v. LevyMississippi Supreme Court · 1879
- Parker v. HullWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- Case v. HotchkissNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Kemp v. PeckNew York Supreme Court · 1891
- Avery v. LeachNew York Supreme Court · 1876
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.