Barnett v. Daw
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, John M. Barnett, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant George W. Daw, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Rensselaer on the 2d day of December, 1899, upon the report of a referee dismissing the complaint upon the merits.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the plaintiff, John M. Barnett, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant George W. Daw, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Rensselaer on the 2d day of December, 1899, upon the report of a referee dismissing the complaint upon the merits. The plaintiff, being the owner of certain premises in Wisconsin, sold them to Sunderland and Ostrander and took back as part of the purchase money two notes, one for $400 and the other for $425. These notes were secured by a mortgage on the property sold. One of these notes was paid; the other one is the…
1Opinion of the Court
Smith, J.:
The facts found by the referee are mostly admitted; his legal conclusions challenged. Upon January 29, 1896, Titus, as attorney for the plaintiff with full authority, repudiated in the plaintiff’s behalf both the attempted transfer by Gates to plaintiff and the attempted barter between Gates and Deyo. That Gates had specific authority from Barnett to make this, barter with Deyo is not pre-. tended. His power of attorney from Barnett was simply the instrument in the execution of the general authority to the agent "tb transfer the property if for the interest of the principal. This…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Benny v. RhodesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- Trustees of Schools v. C. H. McCormick & Bros.Illinois Supreme Court · 1866