Southgate v. Montgomery
New York Court of Chancery
On the 16th May, 1810, the defendants were severally doing business in the West Indies, and the plaintiffs were merchants at Norfolk, in Virginia. The defendants had private dealings or accounts, and had also a quantity of lumber and provisions belonging to them jointly, which had been recently consigned to Hancock & McCormick, of St. Croix, to be *sold on their joint account.
Read the full summary
On the 16th May, 1810, the defendants were severally doing business in the West Indies, and the plaintiffs were merchants at Norfolk, in Virginia. The defendants had private dealings or accounts, and had also a quantity of lumber and provisions belonging to them jointly, which had been recently consigned to Hancock & McCormick, of St. Croix, to be *sold on their joint account. Montgomery had also in his hands a protested bill of exchange, drawn by Eivers in favor of McGregor or order, for 4201 10s. 8d. sterling, which had in fact been sent to Montgomery to collect for the plaintiffs, but…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor:—If the expression, “ after deducting your account in the agreement of the 16th May, 1810,” refers to an account of Hancock and McCormick, to whom the draft or agreement appears to be addressed, and not to the account of Montgomery, which was liquidated at the same time, the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the general accounts between the defendants; because Eivers’ half of the fund then in the hands of Hancock and McCormick, which Montgomery afterwards received, together with the 80 puncheons of meal, which he also received from them, as appears from the testimony of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Simson v. HartCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1816
3Cited by2 opinions
- Taggart v. RisleyOregon Supreme Court · 1872
- Weir v. BirdsallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898