Battle v. Coit
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Supreme Court. The case was this: In April, 1841, William T. Battle (who is the nominal plaintiff in the action) and the defendants composed a copartnership, doing business as. common carriers on the Erie canal, by the name of the Troy and Erie line. The copartnership consisted of the firms of Gf.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court. The case was this: In April, 1841, William T. Battle (who is the nominal plaintiff in the action) and the defendants composed a copartnership, doing business as. common carriers on the Erie canal, by the name of the Troy and Erie line. The copartnership consisted of the firms of Gf. P. Griffith & Co., who did business at Troy, and acted as the agents of the copartnership at that place, and also of the firms of Townsend & Coit and S. Thompson & Co., located at Buffalo. The defendant, William Griffith, and one James M. Fish (who was not a member of the Troy & Erie…
1Opinion of the CourtRosekrans, J.
The opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Gbeeh", in the Supreme Court (19 Barb,, 68), states correctly the prin*398ciples of law applicable to this case. It is a maxim of the law that the incident shall pass by the grant of the principal, but not the principal by the grant of the incident. The sale by Battle, to his copartners, of his interest in the partnership pro-, perty, created a" debt in his favor, for the price of the property and the drafts which he took were merely the evidences of the debt, and not the debt itself. As between the parties to the sale, the debt was the principal and the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Tobey v. BarberNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- In re ClohertyWashington Supreme Court · 1891
- Frisbie v. LarnedNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Hushes v. WheelerCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1827
- Burdick v. GreenNew York Supreme Court · 1818
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.