Marsh v. . Russell
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department affirming a judgment in favor of defendants, entered upon the report of a referee. This action was for an accounting as between copartners. The complaint set forth the following contract: “ It is hereby understood and agreed, by and between the undersigned, that if the undersigned, or either of them, shall make a contract with one or more towns in Washington county, TS.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department affirming a judgment in favor of defendants, entered upon the report of a referee. This action was for an accounting as between copartners. The complaint set forth the following contract: “ It is hereby understood and agreed, by and between the undersigned, that if the undersigned, or either of them, shall make a contract with one or more towns in Washington county, TS. Y., to fill the quota of sucti^wn or towns, under an anticipated call of the government for volunteers, for a sum not less than…
1Opinion of the CourtEarl, J.
The complaint was dismissed upon the ground that the contract set out therein was upon its face against public policy, and therefore void; the claim on the part of the defendants being that the necessary and direct effect of the contract was to prevent competition between the parties thereto in furnishing recruits.
The contract made the parties thereto partners in furnishing recruits for the towns of Washington county. They were to be jointly interested in the business and to share equally in the profits and losses thereof. As regulations of their business, they provided that the individual…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hooker & Woodward v. VandewaterNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Doolin v. WardNew York Supreme Court · 1810
3Cited by16 opinions
- Marie v. . GarrisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Hartford Fire Ins. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
- People v. North River Sugar Refining Co.New York Supreme Court · 1889
- Fisher Flouring Mills Co. v. SwansonWashington Supreme Court · 1913
- Trentman v. WahrenburgIndiana Court of Appeals · 1903
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.