Hancock v. Gomez
This text of 58 Barb. 490 (Hancock v. Gomez) 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
The money for which this action was brought was collected by Gomez, Wallis & Co., by authority of, and as agents for, the plaintiff, and they acknowledged that they had so collected it, both by their accounts rendered, and by their letter to the plaintiff of October 7,1862. Having so received the money, they had no right to return it to Sale & Co. They cannot dispute the title of their principal, by setting up an adverse title in a stranger. (Murray v. Vanderbilt, 39 Barb. 140. Ross v. Curtiss, 31 N. Y. 606.)
The ruling below was therefore erroneous, and the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered; costs to abide the event.
Ingraham, P. J., and Cardozo and Geo. G. Barnard, Justices.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
58 Barb. 490, 1871 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hancock-v-gomez-nysupct-1871.