Wright v. Barnard

New York Supreme Court

Wright v. Barnard

32 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 314

DecidedOctober 15, 1881

StatusPublished

This text of 32 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 314 (Wright v. Barnard) 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

Wright v. Barnard, 32 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 314 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed. Reid, that the evidence authorized the conclusion that King was the agent of the defendant, and that he had apparent authority to make the purchases, etc., which formed the subject of the action, on the defendant’s credit; that the declarations made by King at the time of the purchases, as to his agency, were competent by way of showing to whom the credit was given (Bronner v. Frauenthal, 37 N. Y., 166 ; Tieneyer v. Turnquist, 12 N. Y. W. Dig., 495), and that his declarations made at other times, being simply to the effect that he was the agent of the defendant, without stating the extent of his agency, were mere statements of a fact which was established by legitimate and undisputed evidence, and did no harm. Held, also, that the evidence justified the conclusion that the plaintiff’s testator, Wright, gave credit originally to the defendant (Ferris v. Kilmer, 48 N. Y., 300; Meeker v. Claghorn, 44 id., 349), and that the note of King was taken by him as collateral merely.

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

Judgment affirmed. Reid, that the evidence authorized the conclusion that King was the agent of the defendant, and that he had apparent authority to make the purchases, etc., which formed the subject of the action, on the defendant’s credit; that the declarations made by King at the time of the purchases, as to his agency, were competent by way of showing to whom the credit was given (Bronner v. Frauenthal, 37 N. Y., 166 ; Tieneyer v. Turnquist, 12 N. Y. W. Dig., 495), and that his declarations made at other times, being simply to the effect that he was the agent of the defendant, without stating the extent of his agency, were mere statements of a fact which was established by legitimate and undisputed evidence, and did no harm. Held, also, that the evidence justified the conclusion that the plaintiff’s testator, Wright, gave credit originally to the defendant (Ferris v. Kilmer, 48 N. Y., 300; Meeker v. Claghorn, 44 id., 349), and that the note of King was taken by him as collateral merely.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-barnard-nysupct-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack