Property · MBE-tested
CONVERSE et al. v. PARMLY
103 F. 991·United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York·1900
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
CONVERSE et al. v. PARMLY.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
July 2, 1900.)
Demurrer to Complaint in an Action at Law.
Randolph Parmly and Arthur H. Masten, for demurrer, diaries A. Deshon, opposed.
[MAJORITY — LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.]
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.
The complaint apparently declares upon a primary agreement of defendant to respond for losses, and not a guaranty that Prescott & Brooks shall respond for them. Indeed, no indebtedness of Prescott & Brooks to plaintiff for such losses is alleged, nor is there sufficient in the complaint to warrant such a holding. When the proofs are in the case may present a different aspect, but on the pleadings alone the demurrer must be overruled. Leave to answer within 20 days.