« 이전계속 »
Dioyt v. Tanner,
J Douglas, Ferris v. 626
192 Dubois v. Harcourt,
Janes, Smith v. 41 Jenkins v. Pell,
450 Hart v.......
96 Durkee, Smith v.... 684
9 Jennings v. Merrill, Dutch Church of N. Y., Van
Johnson v. Moss,
145 Kleeck v..
230 Kinnan, Atkins v....
241 Ellison, Carr v....
91 Emmet's adm’rs v. Bradstreet, 50
Bank, Evans, Wells v.
622 - v. Parker,
L Everett, Saltus v. 267|Lasscells, Connell v. ...........
77 Lockwood, Bennett v... F
Lumberman's Bank, Benham v... 673 Fairbanks v. Camp,...
600 Farrington v. Morgan,.
81 Fidler v. Delavan,
671 Flower's executors v. Garr, 668
Mapes, Allen v. ........
633 Ford v. Monroe,
72 Fox v. Phelps,..
437 Melhinch, McPherson V....... 671 Franklin, Miller v..
9 Miller v. Franklin,
Monroe O. and T., The People v.. 108 Garner, Hallenbeck v...... 22 Monroe, Ford v......
210 Garr, Flower's executors V....... 668 Morgan, Farrington v. Gould, Grover v. 227 Moss, Johnson v.
145 Green, Wilson v.
V...... Gregory v. Thomas,. 17 Mott v. Small,
212 Grover v. Gould,
227| Mott, Steele v....
24 Hallenbeck v. Garner,
22. New York, Mayor of, &c. v. Stone, 139 Halliday v. McDougall,. 81|North v. Pepper,
677 Harcourt, Dubois v.
41 North American Coal Co., Dyett v. 570 Harris, Waller v.
555 Hart v. Dubois,
0 Hastings v. Pa.mer,
225 Herkimer Judges, The People v.: 186|2gden American Ins. Co. V....... 287
Olds, Wheadon v.
174 Hewlett & Post, Pearsall v....... 111 Hinman and others v. Booth, 666
P Hitchcock, Wood v. - v. Covill, 167 Palmer, Hastings v.......
225 Hoffman v. Carow, 21 Parker, Evans v
622 Holmes, Corlies v. ...
681 Pearsall v. Post and Hewlett, 111 St. John v... 609 Peck v. Acker,..
605 Hone's executors v. Van Schaick,. 564 Pell, Jenkins v.
450 Hubbard, Stillwell and wife v.a.. 44 People The, ex rel. Barron, v MonHubbell v. Denison, 181
roe O. & T., 108 Hudson. Beekman and wife v..... 53
Benton, v. Vail, 12 Hull, Vanderburgh v...
Boyden, v. Su. Hunt, Mills v.
perior Court, 607
People The, ex rel. Doughty, Stoddard and others v. Butler and
..... 507 P.,
658||Stone, The Mayor, &c. of New-
607 Lyndes, v. The Superior Court, The People v..... 663
Comptroller, 595 Suydam & Boyd, Allens v.. 321
190 Court, 663 Thomas, Gregory v...
17 Woolley, -- v. Curtis,
675 Baker, 602 Tozer, Van Cortlandt v..... 423 Pepper, North v... 677 Traver, Beekman V....
67 Perhamus, Bosworth v. .........
611 Phelps, Fox v. ......
... 12 Vance v. Bloomer,
196 Van Cortlandt v. Tozer,.
423 R Vanderburgh v. Hull,.
70 Randall, Watson v. ..... 201||Van Duzer, Degroot v.
390 Rapp, Zimmermann v...... 100 Van Kleeck v. Dutch Church N. Y. 457 Rhinelanders, Simpson v. 103 Van Riper, ex parte, ......
614 Van Schaick, Hone's ex'rs v...... 564 S
Van Surlay, Cochran v.......... 365 St. John v. Holmes,.
609 Salter v. Burt,
W Saltus v. Everett, 267 Walker v. Sherman,
636 Sands v. Bullock,
555 Scranton, Buffalo City v...
676 Sea Insurance Company v. Ward, 588 Watson v. Randall,......
Ward, Sea Insurance Company v. 588
201 Sears, The People v.....
260 Shaler, Whaling v.........
184 Sherman, Walker v.... 636 Welcome, Sterling v. .....
238 Sickles v. Mather,
Wells v. Evans, ..
251 Simpson v. Rhinelanders,
Westchester Judges, Haines v.... 625 Slack, Crooke v.
177| Westervelt v. The People, ex rel. Small, Mott v.......
416 Smith v. Weed, . 184|Whaling v. Shales,
673 v. Janes,
174 — v. Durkee,..
96 Spence, Watson v...
189 Sprague v. Blake,.....
47 starr v. Child,
230 Steele v. Mott,
679 Sterling v. Welcome,
238 Still v. Hall,....
Z Stilwell and wife v. Hubbard,. 441 Zimmerman v. Rapp,...
IN JULY TERM 1838-IN THE SIXTY.THIRD YEAR OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF
THE UNITED STATES.
Continued from Volume Nineteen.
JENNINGS vs. MERRILL and others.
A contract of sale by a factor or agent, entrusted with goods for the purpose of
sale, is valid, and will protect a purchaser against the principal, although no money is advanced, or negotiable instrument or other obligation given at the time of the contract; it is enough if an obligation be subsequently entered into on the faith of the contract, at any time whilst it remains unrescinded: It was accordingly held in this case, that the subsequent endorsements of promissory notes, and in anticipation of which the property was transferred, gave effect to the contract.
ERROR from the superior court of the city of New-York. This was an action of trespass, for taking and carrying away a quantity of merchandize, sent by the plaintiff, residing in Philadelphia, to a mercantile firm in New-York, transacting business under the name of Butler & Co. to be sold on commission. On the 9th October, 1834, Butler & Co. put into the hands of two of the defendants, transacting business in New York, under the Vol. XX.
Jennings v. Merrill.
name of Merrill & Bowen, an invoice of goods received from the plaintiff, amounting to $3135.19, with a note attached, that they considered the goods as the property of Merrill & Bowen to be removed at their pleasure. The goods were then in the store of Butler & Co. The invoice was delivered to Merrill & Bowen, to secure them for endorsements to be made on the faith of it, upon the paper of Butler & Co., to about the amount of $2,500, as the same should be wanted by the latter firm in making purchases. In the latter part of the month of October, 1834, Merrill & Bowen endorsed two notes for Butler & Co., amounting together to $2301.33, which they were subsequently obliged to pay. These notes were dated on the 23 and 28th October. The members of the firm of Butler & Co. having absconded, Merrill & Bowen on the 20th December, 1834, took possession of the goods specified in the invoice, and nine days thereafter, this suit was commenced. The chief justice of the superior court charged the jury, that if they should find that the endorsements of Merrill & Bouren were given under the contract between them and Butler & Co., relative to the property in question, and upon the faith thereof, that the defendants were entitled to a verdict. The counsel for the plaintiff excepted to the charge, and the jury found a verdict for the defendants. Judgment having been entered on such verdict, the plaintiff sued out a writ of error.
D. Graham, for the plaintiff in error, insisted that the contract between Butler & Co., and Merrill & Bowen was not valid within the meaning of the statute, Session Laws of 1830, p. 203; that to render a contract of a factor, entrusted with the possession of merchandize for the purpose of sale, obligatory upon his principal, it should be shown that the case came strictly within the terms of the statute ; that the sale or disposition of the property was for money advanced, or for a negotiable instrument, or other obligation given by the person to whom the goods were transferred at the time of the contract. Here was neither : at the time of the contract there was no money advanced, nor was any instrument or obligation given by the party to whom the