Beaudrias v. Curtiss

New York Supreme Court

Beaudrias v. Curtiss

17 N.Y.S. 708, 44 N.Y. St. Rep. 478, 63 Hun 628, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 468

DecidedFebruary 8, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 17 N.Y.S. 708 (Beaudrias v. Curtiss) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beaudrias v. Curtiss, 17 N.Y.S. 708, 44 N.Y. St. Rep. 478, 63 Hun 628, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 468 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnard; P. J.

The exact interest which Bent, plaintiff’s assignor, had in the business of the aluminum plating is not decisive, or even material. Assuming a partnership, Curtiss had sold the business to his mother before the notes in question, except the $100, were given. The notes were given [709]*709ostensibly to buy out Bent’s share in the business; and, while the defendant inserted in the letter inclosing the notes that they were to be payable “as soon as I can get a partner who has sufficient means to place the business on a sound footing, ” the words were idle. The business had been sold before the letter was written, and by means of the letter and the notes a good title was made to the business in the defendant’s mother. Defendant alone signed the bill of sale to her. It would be a very inequitable result if by this clause in the letter the defendant could get a title to the property which he had wrongfully sold, and pay Bent nothing. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, costs to abide event. All concur..

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

Barnard; P. J.

The exact interest which Bent, plaintiff’s assignor, had in the business of the aluminum plating is not decisive, or even material. Assuming a partnership, Curtiss had sold the business to his mother before the notes in question, except the $100, were given. The notes were given [709]*709ostensibly to buy out Bent’s share in the business; and, while the defendant inserted in the letter inclosing the notes that they were to be payable “as soon as I can get a partner who has sufficient means to place the business on a sound footing, ” the words were idle. The business had been sold before the letter was written, and by means of the letter and the notes a good title was made to the business in the defendant’s mother. Defendant alone signed the bill of sale to her. It would be a very inequitable result if by this clause in the letter the defendant could get a title to the property which he had wrongfully sold, and pay Bent nothing. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, costs to abide event. All concur..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 N.Y.S. 708, 44 N.Y. St. Rep. 478, 63 Hun 628, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beaudrias-v-curtiss-nysupct-1892.