Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
William H. Jessup et al., Appellants, v. Jacob Steurer, Respondent, 1878 — 75 N.Y. 613 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
William H. Jessup et al., Appellants, v. Jacob Steurer, Respondent
75 N.Y. 613·New York Court of Appeals·1878·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
William H. Jessup et al., Appellants, v. Jacob Steurer, Respondent.
(Argued December 11, 1878;
decided December 20, 1878.)
This action was brought to recover for a quantity of malt alleged to have been purchased by defendant of plaintiffs. The malt was sold to one Gescheidt and credit given to him, but plaintiffs’ evidence was to the effect that Gescheidt was in fact the agent of defendant in making a purchase. Held, that plaintiffs, although they supposed Gescheidt to be the purchaser, yet if they afterwards discovered that defendant ■ was the principal, were entitled to resort to defendant for payment. (Meeker v. Olaghorn, 44 N". Y., 349.)
The principal controversy oil the appeal was as to a ruling of the trial court holding that defendant was not liable for malt had by Gesolieidt, prior to April 9, 1872, and excluding it from the consideration of the jury. Held, error, as plaintiffs’ evidence was substantially the same as to malt purchased before as after that date, and it being- disputed by defendant’s evidence was for the jury to determine.
Samuel Jones for appellants.
Henry Daily, jr. for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Earl, J.,]
Earl, J.,
reads for reversal and new trial. All concur.
Judgment reversed.