Baltimore Ohio R.R. Co. v. . Arthur
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, made January 12,1881, the substance of which is hereinafter stated.
Read the full summary
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, made January 12,1881, the substance of which is hereinafter stated. The complaint in this action shows that before August 20, 1880, the plaintiff bought and received of the defendant Arthur, merchandise, of the value of $2,478.52 less $21.83 to be deducted for freight due for transportation of said merchandise, but were forbidden to pay Arthur, by defendant Power, “ acting as receiver,” who claimed the said purchase-price, and threatened to sue therefor; that Arthur in June, 1881, brought a suit,…
1Opinion of the CourtDanforth, J.
The order should be reversed.
First. Eo appeal was taken from the order made in Kings county, in the suit between Arthur and this plaintiff, and it was not within the jurisdiction of the General Term.
• Second. The rest of the order is not warranted by the facts before the court. It cannot stand upon the Code. Section 820, cited by the respondent, was no doubt applicable to the case sought to be made by the defendant (plaintiff here) in the action brought by Arthur. It there moved as defendant, and sought the relief offered to a litigant in that character, but its case did not satisfy the…
2Cited by34 opinions
- Pouch v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance v. KidderIndiana Supreme Court · 1904
- Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. of Hartford v. YawDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1931
- Smith v. MosierU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1909
- Goodrich v. WilliamsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1899
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.