Griswold v. Jackson
New York Court of Chancery
The defendant, Caroline Dunham, not having redeemed the stock in the Williamsburgh Ferry Company, according to the decree made in the cause, wherein she was complainant, against the defendant Daniel Jackson—affirmed on ap peal (see the case in 6 Wend.
Read the full summary
The defendant, Caroline Dunham, not having redeemed the stock in the Williamsburgh Ferry Company, according to the decree made in the cause, wherein she was complainant, against the defendant Daniel Jackson—affirmed on ap peal (see the case in 6 Wend. R. 22.); and the defendant Jackson having afterwards sued the present complainant at law upon his due bill given for the money advanced on the pledge of the stock, the complainant filed his bill in this cause to restrain the suit at law and to have the value of the stock applied in extinguishment of the debt. The bill alleged the borrowing of…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor:
fact of a sufficient tender must, ior the present, be deemed established; and this is very important to the complainant’s case: for without it his bill could not be supported for the purpose of throwing the loss, arising from the subsequent depreciation of the stock, upon the defendant.
The question nevertheless arises: what right has the complainant to file a bill for this purpose 1
It appears to me that whether he be viewed in the light in which the bill represents him, that is to say, as an agent of Caroline Dunham, raising the money on the pledge of the stock as…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Seidlitz v. . AuerbachNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Loughborough v. McNevinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Gentry v. FarruggiaWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1949
- 884 West End Avenue Corp. v. PearlmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Williams v. HayesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.