Black v. White
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal from judgment on verdict for plaintiff, and order denying motion for new trial, made upon the xriinutes. The action is for the recovery of money advanced. The plaintiff’s case was as follows: Two firms, Hartshorne & Co. and Hartshorne & Brand, brewers, doing business in connection, failed in business and made an assignment for the benefit of their creditors to the defendant, who was one of the creditors.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment on verdict for plaintiff, and order denying motion for new trial, made upon the xriinutes. The action is for the recovery of money advanced. The plaintiff’s case was as follows: Two firms, Hartshorne & Co. and Hartshorne & Brand, brewers, doing business in connection, failed in business and made an assignment for the benefit of their creditors to the defendant, who was one of the creditors. The defendant permitted or authorized the members of the insolvent firm to carry on the business with the assigned property for the benefit of the creditors. Nothing turns upon the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—Sedgwick, J.
In the hurry of the trial, I think the learned judge, did not scrutinize the language of plaintiff’s request. The jury could take it to mean, that, if outside of the conflict as to what was the express arrangement, they were satisfied that the defendant as assignee took the money and then used it, there was, as matter of law, an implied promise to repay it. I do not think that proof of delivery of money, of receiving it, and using it, is proof of an obligation to return, and is therefore not proof of an implied promise.
Greenleaf gives (vol. 2, § 112), the law: “In…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Doty v. WilsonNew York Supreme Court · 1817
- Robertson v. LynchNew York Supreme Court · 1821
- Bogert v. . MorseNew York Court of Appeals · 1848