Barbour v. Litchfield

New York Court of Appeals

Barbour v. Litchfield

4 Abb. Ct. App. 655

DecidedDecember 15, 1859

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Abb. Ct. App. 655 (Barbour v. Litchfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barbour v. Litchfield, 4 Abb. Ct. App. 655 (N.Y. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

Gray, J.

The claim upon which the defendant received the amount recovered against him, was assigned to him by Barbour in terms as cashier of the Farmers’ &- Mechanics’ Bank, and [657]*657not to him individually—using the style of his occupation as a description of his person. When he was dealing with the defendant, he knew, therefore, that he was dealing with him as agent for the bank, not upon his own account. This question has recently been-fully considered in Genesee Bank v. Patchin Bank, 13 N. Y. (3 Kern.) 309.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Judgment reversed and new, trial ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gray, J.

The claim upon which the defendant received the amount recovered against him, was assigned to him by Barbour in terms as cashier of the Farmers’ &- Mechanics’ Bank, and [657]*657not to him individually—using the style of his occupation as a description of his person. When he was dealing with the defendant, he knew, therefore, that he was dealing with him as agent for the bank, not upon his own account. This question has recently been-fully considered in Genesee Bank v. Patchin Bank, 13 N. Y. (3 Kern.) 309.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Judgment reversed and new, trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Abb. Ct. App. 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbour-v-litchfield-ny-1859.