Ex parte Fulton
7 Cow. 484
Opinion
The only question is, whether this bond be
valid and binding on the surety without his being named .in it. We think it is. It is enough in any contract, that the intent of the party clearly appear, though it be not expressed fully and particularly. A full intent to be bound by the terms of this bond, is plain from the act of executing it. This view of the case is not only reasonable, but is supported by the authorities. (Dobson v. Keys, Cro. Jac. 261; Smith v. Crooker, 5 Id. 538, 540.) Both cases cited are in point.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ex parte Fulton, 7 Cow. 484 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1827).
7 Cow. 484 (Ex parte Fulton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Esselstyn v. McDonald
98 A.D. 197 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)
Standard Underground Cable Co. v. Stone
35 A.D. 62 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Campbell v. Rotering
6 L.R.A. 278 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1889)
Blackmer v. Davis
128 Mass. 538 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)
Scheid v. Leibshultz
51 Ind. 38 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1875)
Thomson v. Sixpenny Savings Bank
5 Bosw. 293 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1859)
Dore v. Covey
13 Cal. 502 (California Supreme Court, 1859)