Whitney v. Wardell

28 N.Y.S. 1118, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 885
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 8, 1894·Published

Opinion

HERRICK, J.

I think the judgment should be affirmed. There is nothing in the case to show that Whitney advanced any money, gave credit, or accepted the note upon which the action is brought, in reliance upon the statement that Wardell was a member of the firm of W. J. Caywood & Co., or was in any way misled by any “holding out” by Wardell that he was a member of such firm. Lawrence v. Brown, 5 N. Y. 394; Poillon v. Secor, 61 N. Y. 456; Pringle v. Leverich, 48 N. Y. Super. Ct. 90; Du Bois v. Lamson, 18 Wkly. Dig. 490; Vibbard v. Roderick, 51 Barb. 616; Irvin v. Conklin, 36 Barb. 64. Judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Whitney v. Wardell, 28 N.Y.S. 1118, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 885 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

28 N.Y.S. 1118 (Whitney v. Wardell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Poillon v. . Secor
61 N.Y. 456 (New York Court of Appeals, 1875)
Lawrence v. . Brown
5 N.Y. 394 (New York Court of Appeals, 1851)
Irvin v. Conklin
36 Barb. 64 (New York Supreme Court, 1861)
Vibbard v. Roderick
51 Barb. 616 (New York Supreme Court, 1868)