Philip Carey Co. v. Duffy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Philip Carey Co. v. Duffy

256 A.D. 1054, 10 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6039

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 22, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 1054 (Philip Carey Co. v. Duffy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Philip Carey Co. v. Duffy, 256 A.D. 1054, 10 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6039 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The letter written by the defendant addressed to Charles J. Fox and The Metal Building Corporation was a general letter of credit intended by the defendant to be used by Fox, acting for or in the name of The Metal Building Corporation, in buying materials on credit, and intended by the defendant to secure any debt so contracted. The plaintiff, in reliance upon the letter and promise of credit, sold materials to Fox, acting for and in the name of The Metal Building Corporation, and plaintiff is entitled to recover from defendant the agreed price of the materials. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an action under a guaranty to recover for merchandise sold.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Taylor, JJ.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The letter written by the defendant addressed to Charles J. Fox and The Metal Building Corporation was a general letter of credit intended by the defendant to be used by Fox, acting for or in the name of The Metal Building Corporation, in buying materials on credit, and intended by the defendant to secure any debt so contracted. The plaintiff, in reliance upon the letter and promise of credit, sold materials to Fox, acting for and in the name of The Metal Building Corporation, and plaintiff is entitled to recover from defendant the agreed price of the materials. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an action under a guaranty to recover for merchandise sold.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 1054, 10 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philip-carey-co-v-duffy-nyappdiv-1939.