Majority
p. 1102FLINN, Respondent, v. MILLER, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. June, 1901.)
Headnote
Action by Joseph A. Flinn against William S. Miller.Glover, Sweezy & Glover, for appellant. H. A. Geney, for respondent.
This case is distinguishable from Brooks v. Mortimer, 10 App. Div. 518 , 42 N. Y. Supp. 299 . In that case the grocers’ bills were made out to the purveyor, and the purveyor’s personal checks given in payment thereof. In the case at bar, while the dealings continued for some years, plaintiff’s bills were always made out, and in some instances mailed.
p. 1103
by the plaintiff to the defendant in his own name, and the mere fact of the coachman coming with the money to pay the same was not a circumstance at variance with everyday dealings, and could not constitute notice sufficient to put plaintiff upon inquiry. Judgment af•firmed, with costs.
Cases cited
- Brooks v. Mortimer 10 App. Div. 518 p. 1102