Hendrickson v. Beers

The Superior Court of New York City

Hendrickson v. Beers

19 Bosw. 639

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedJune 16, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Bosw. 639 (Hendrickson v. Beers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hendrickson v. Beers, 19 Bosw. 639 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court—Hoffman, J.

There is no ground to differ from the conclusions of fact found by the Referee.

The receipt in full of all demands, which the defendant made an unsuccessful attempt to explain, is not merely not conclusive against the plaintiff, but tends to support the assignor’s account of the transaction. The assignment to the present plaintiff was plainly sufficient and valid.

The Referee’s conclusion of law, that the money could be recovered, is correct. (Storey v. Brennan, 15 N. Y. R., 524.)

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

By the Court—Hoffman, J.

There is no ground to differ from the conclusions of fact found by the Referee.

The receipt in full of all demands, which the defendant made an unsuccessful attempt to explain, is not merely not conclusive against the plaintiff, but tends to support the assignor’s account of the transaction. The assignment to the present plaintiff was plainly sufficient and valid.

The Referee’s conclusion of law, that the money could be recovered, is correct. (Storey v. Brennan, 15 N. Y. R., 524.)

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Bosw. 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hendrickson-v-beers-nysuperctnyc-1860.