Many v. Beekman Iron Co.
New York Court of Chancery
This case came before the court upon the separate demurrers of the Beekman Iron Company, and of the defendants Conklin and Hewett, to the complainant’s bill. The facts as stated in the bill were substantially as follows ; The Beekman Iron Company was an incorporated manufacturing association, and Conklin and Hewett were their agents to sell the productions of the furnace of the company.
Read the full summary
This case came before the court upon the separate demurrers of the Beekman Iron Company, and of the defendants Conklin and Hewett, to the complainant’s bill. The facts as stated in the bill were substantially as follows ; The Beekman Iron Company was an incorporated manufacturing association, and Conklin and Hewett were their agents to sell the productions of the furnace of the company. In September, 1835, the corporation, by those agents, contracted to sell to the complainant 600 tons of pig iron Ho. 1, made at the Beekman furnace, to be delivered at Albany, one half in 1836 and the other…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The contract in this case is not under seal, and I think as it is signed by Conklin and Hewett as agents for the corporation, it might be declared on, in an action at law, as the agreement of the Beekman Iron Company made and signed by the agents of the corporation. (Story on Agency, 143, § 154. Evans v. Wells & Spring, 22 Wend. Rep. 325.) It was not necessary, therefore, to come here to reform the contract in that respect.
The objection taken by the demurrer of Conklin and Hewett, that they are mere witnesses and ought not to be made parties, might perhaps have been held valid…
2Cited by28 opinions
- Hubbard v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
- Maher v. . Hibernia Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Gardiner v. MaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Curtis v. . AlbeeNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Robertson v. BullionsNew York Supreme Court · 1850
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.