Hyperlawhypertext legal database Hartley v. Cataract Steam Engine Co. 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 374

← Cases

Hartley v. Cataract Steam Engine Co.

46 N.Y. St. Rep. 374 Court N.Y. Gen. Term Decision date 1892-05-09 English

Delivered by Pratt, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 374
Mark Hartley, Assignee, Resp’t, v. The Cataract Steam Engine Co., No. 2, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed May 9, 1892.)

Headnote

1. Assignment for creditors—Proof of.
In an action by an assignee for creditors to recover a claim due to liis assignors, the assignment of such claim is properly proved by the production of the general assignment and proof of its execution.
S. Same—Evidence.
In such an action it is proper for one of the assignors, who is a witness, to look at the firm books to refresh his memory as to the goods sold.
3. Sale—Agency.
Proof that similar goods had been sold to the same person as the ones in question, and that defendant paid for them, is sufficient to show that such person, who had charge of its engine house, was authorized to buy the goods in question for defendant.
Appeal from judgment of the Richmond county court, affirming judgment of a justice of the peace.
p. 375
Action for goods sold and delivered by the late firm of C. M. Pine & Son, brought by plaintiff, their assignee under a general assignment for creditors.
The goods in question were delivered to one Gorman, who had charge of defendant’s engine house.
W. J. Powers, for app’lt; De Groot, Rawson & Stafford, for resp’t.

The assignment of the claim in suit to the plaintiff was denied, and the plaintiff proved the fact by producing the assignment and proving its execution.

The witness Pine was one of the assignors and a member of the firm that sold the goods in suit.

It was proper for him to look at the firm books to refresh his memory as to the goods delivered to the defendant. Bigelow v. Hall, 91 N. Y., 145 ; Raux v. Brand, 90 id., 309.

The witness Pine testified that the goods were sold and delivered to one Gorman, who had charge of defendant’s engine house, and that he had sold similar goods to him before and the defendant had paid for them. It is plain that the defense was purely technical and without merit

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J., concur.