Gunn v. Cantine
This text of 10 Johns. 387 (Gunn v. Cantine) 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.
Opinion
It appears affirmatively, from the case, that the plaintiff had no beneficial interest in the money collected. He was a mere attorney employed by Simmons to collect this debt; and there was no express promise by the defendant to pay the money collected to the plaintiff.
The letter of attorney was revocable at pleasure; and the law will not raise any assumpsit to the plaintiff from the facts in this case. This is, by no means, so strong a case as that of Pigott v. Thompson, (3 Bos. & Pull. 147.) and yet in that case the agent was not permitted to sue in his own name. The defendant is entitled to judgment.
Judgment for the defendant
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
10 Johns. 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gunn-v-cantine-nysupct-1813.