Ladd v. Arkell
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal from judgment. The summons in this action was for relief, and the complaint was as follows : “Thomas W. Ladd, the above named plaintiff, by Elias J. Beach, his attorney, complaining against James Arkell and William F. Tufts, the above named defendants, shows to the court as follows: ‘1 First.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment. The summons in this action was for relief, and the complaint was as follows : “Thomas W. Ladd, the above named plaintiff, by Elias J. Beach, his attorney, complaining against James Arkell and William F. Tufts, the above named defendants, shows to the court as follows: ‘1 First. That during the ‘whole year 1866, the above named defendants were copartners iti business, at the city of New York, under the firm name and style of “Arkell, Tafts & Co.,” and as a branch of their business then and there transacted under their said firm name, received consignments of goods to be…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court. —Curtis, J.
The defendants claim that the position of the plaintiff was simply that of a broker in the transaction, and that he had none of the rights of a factor to maintain a suit. The distinction between a broker and a factor is,- that it is peculiarly the office of the former to simply act as a negotiator between the parties, while the factor is entrusted with possession, management and control of the goods, and authorized to buy and sell in his own name as well as that of his principals (Story on Agency, §§ 33, 34.; Baring v. Corrie, 2 B. & Aid. 148; Higgins v. Moore, 34 N.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Conaughty v. . NicholsNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Grinnell, Minturn & Co. v. SchmidtThe Superior Court of New York City · 1850
- Rowland v. PhalenThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857