S. & J. Rathbon v. Budlong
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, tried before the Chief Justice, at the last Albany circuit, The note was in the following words : “ Ninety days after date, I promise to pay S. fy J. L. Rathbon, or order, three hundred and two dollars, value received, for the Susquehannah Cotton and Woollen Manufacturing Company. Albany, June 24th, 1815. Samuel Budlong, agent.”
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, tried before the Chief Justice, at the last Albany circuit, The note was in the following words : “ Ninety days after date, I promise to pay S. fy J. L. Rathbon, or order, three hundred and two dollars, value received, for the Susquehannah Cotton and Woollen Manufacturing Company. Albany, June 24th, 1815. Samuel Budlong, agent.” The defendant gave in evidence a bill of parcels, headed as follows: “ The Susquehannah Cotton and Woollen Manufacturing Company, bought of S. fy J. L. Rathbon,” &c. at the bottom of which was the following…
1Opinion of the CourtSpencer, J.
It is perfectly manifest that the note, on which the suit is brought, was given by the defendant, as agent, for the Susquehannah Cotton and Woollen Manufacturing Company, and that the goods for which the note was given were sold on the credit of that Company. To charge the defendant with the payment of the note, would violate every principle of justice and equity ; nor is the law so unjust. The general principle is, that an agent is not liable to be sued upon contracts made by him on behalf of his principal, if the name ofhis principal is disclosed and made known to the person contracted…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Olcott v. . Tioga Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- Jackson School Township v. FarlowIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Mott v. HicksNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Hicks v. HindeNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Brown v. AustinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1804
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.