Newberry v. Furnival
New York Supreme Court
This is an action to recover for alleged breach of contract, in that the defendants refused to receive and pay for certain jute hemp which the plaintiffs contracted to sell to them. The written contract is annexed to the complaint, and is as follows: “ Daniel L. Sturgis, Hemp Broker, “ 117 Wall Street, “Hew York, May 19, 1870. “ Sold for account of Messrs. Hewberry & Son, to Messrs.
Read the full summary
This is an action to recover for alleged breach of contract, in that the defendants refused to receive and pay for certain jute hemp which the plaintiffs contracted to sell to them. The written contract is annexed to the complaint, and is as follows: “ Daniel L. Sturgis, Hemp Broker, “ 117 Wall Street, “Hew York, May 19, 1870. “ Sold for account of Messrs. Hewberry & Son, to Messrs. Furnival & Bitchy, four hundred and thirty-one (431) bales jute hemp, to arrive from London per ship Bohena, in good order and free from damage, at five and three-fourths cents per pound, gold, cash, payable…
1Opinion of the CourtLearned, J.
It is found by the referee—and the finding is sustained by the evidence—that in this transaction Sturgis acted for the seller and not for the defendants.
When the ship Bobena arrived she brought only 343 bales for the plaintiffs. The remaining eighty-eight bales subsequently arrived by another ship about a month later. On the arrival of the Bobena the plaintiffs delivered Sturgis an order for the delivery of 344 bales of jute to Furnival & Bitchy. By means of this order Sturgis procured the delivery of the jute to him and stored it in his name in a public store. On the arrival of the Bobena,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Baker v. . HigginsNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
3Cited by1 opinion
- Chatillon v. Co-Operative Apartment Co.New York Supreme Court · 1915