Converse v. Parmly

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Converse v. Parmly

103 F. 991, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4714

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided July 2, 1900·Published

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The complaint apparently declares upon a primary agreement of defendant to respond for losses, and not a guaranty that Prescott & Brooks shall respond for them. Indeed, no indebtedness of Prescott & Brooks to plaintiff for such losses is alleged, nor is there sufficient in the complaint to warrant such a holding. When the proofs are in the case may present a different aspect, but on the pleadings alone the demurrer must be overruled. Leave to answer within 20 days.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The complaint apparently declares upon a primary agreement of defendant to respond for losses, and not a guaranty that Prescott & Brooks shall respond for them. Indeed, no indebtedness of Prescott & Brooks to plaintiff for such losses is alleged, nor is there sufficient in the complaint to warrant such a holding. When the proofs are in the case may present a different aspect, but on the pleadings alone the demurrer must be overruled. Leave to answer within 20 days.

Converse v. Parmly, 103 F. 991, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4714 (circtsdny 1900).

Pincite

103 F. 991 (Converse v. Parmly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.