Richardson v. Abendroth
43 Barb. 162, 1864 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 132
This text of 43 Barb. 162 (Richardson v. Abendroth) 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.
Bluebook
Richardson v. Abendroth, 43 Barb. 162, 1864 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 132 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1864).
Opinions
I think this judgment should be affirmed. None of the transfers have the effect of relieving the plaintiff from his liability upon the demand in suit. Consequently, the cases of Bailey et al. v. Bancker, (3 Hill, 188,) and Andrews v. Murray, (33 Barb. 354,) are direct authorities against a recovery by the plaintiff, in this action.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
May v. Genesee County Savings Bank
79 N.W. 630 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1899)
Dodge v. Havemeyer
4 N.Y. St. Rep. 561 (New York Supreme Court, 1886)
Branson v. Oregonian Railway Co.
11 Or. 161 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1883)
Clark v. Myers
18 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 608 (New York Supreme Court, 1877)
Deming v. Puleston
1 Jones & S. 231 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1871)
Williamson v. Wadsworth
49 Barb. 294 (New York Supreme Court, 1867)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
43 Barb. 162, 1864 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-abendroth-nysupct-1864.