Mitchell v. Bristol & Powell
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the New-York circuit in November, 1831, before the Hon. Ogden Edwards, one of the circuit judges. The suit was on a promissory note for $435, given by the defendants, dated 22d December, 1827, payable to Daniel Mitchell, or bearer, four months after date, and transferred by the payee by endorsement to Jethro Mitchell, the plaintiff in this cause.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the New-York circuit in November, 1831, before the Hon. Ogden Edwards, one of the circuit judges. The suit was on a promissory note for $435, given by the defendants, dated 22d December, 1827, payable to Daniel Mitchell, or bearer, four months after date, and transferred by the payee by endorsement to Jethro Mitchell, the plaintiff in this cause. Daniel Mitchell was a commission merchant in Albany, dealing in oil, with which he was supplied by the plaintiff and other individuals; the note in question was taken for a quantity of oil belonging to Jethro…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Nelson, J.
It is settled that where goods are sold on a del credere commission by a factor, in an action by the principal to recover the value of them, the buyer, who knew nothing of the principal, may set off any demand he may have on such factor, on the ground that he dealt with him as principal, George v. Clagett, 7 T. R. 359; and from two cases given in the notes to the above case, to wit, Rabone, jun. v. Williams and Bayley v. Morley, the one decided by Lord Mansfield and the other by Lord Kenyon, it would seem that, in all cases where a factor deals for his principal, but…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Commonwealth v. FlanaganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
- Marling v. NommensenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Gardner v. Allen's Ex'rSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
- Lough v. ThorntonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- Com. v. Walls, D.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.