Lincoln v. Crandell

21 Wend. 101
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1839·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Bronson, J.

The defendants covenanted for themselves as individuals. They did not describe them selves in the contract, nor sign it, as trustees, directors, agents, committee, &c.; and there is nothing in the contract from which it can be inferred that they either intended to bind any body but themselves, or that they were themselves unwilling to be personally bound.

In all the various forms in which the question was presented, the referees decided that the written contract could not be contradicted by paroi proof that the defendants did not intend to be personally liable. They decided correctly—and this answers most of the exceptions taken on the hearing.

Although the trustees of the corporation on the 2d June, 1336, approved of the contract, it was none the less the undertaking of the defendants individually.

Motion denied,

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

Lincoln v. Crandell, 21 Wend. 101 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1839).

21 Wend. 101 (Lincoln v. Crandell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Whitford v. . Laidler
94 N.Y. 145 (New York Court of Appeals, 1883)
Squier v. Norris
1 Lans. 282 (New York Supreme Court, 1869)
Babbett v. Young
51 Barb. 466 (New York Supreme Court, 1867)
Auburn City Bank v. Leonard
40 Barb. 119 (New York Supreme Court, 1863)
Secor v. Law
9 Bosw. 163 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1862)
Becker v. Lamont
13 How. Pr. 23 (New York Supreme Court, 1855)
Newcomb v. Clark
1 Denio 226 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1845)