Nudd Et Al v. Burrows, Assignee

Decision Date01 October 1875
Citation23 L.Ed. 286,91 U.S. 426
PartiesNUDD ET AL. v. BURROWS, ASSIGNEE
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

" 16 " " Peterson 35 00

" 16 " " Johnson 5 00

" 3 " " protest fees 10 20

" 27 " " draft 300 00

" 28 " " " 600 00

" 31 " " " 4,000 00

" 31 " " " 1,000 00

" 31 " " " 750 00

Jan. 11 " acceptance 334 84

To certain questions put to the witnesses, calling for the declarations and statements of Emmons at and before the consignment was made, the defendants objected, because said declarations, not being made in the presence of either of the defendants, nor brought to the knowledge of either, could not be used to prejudice them; which objections being overruled by the court, and the answers admitted, the defendants then and there excepted.

The defendants introduced evidence tending to show that they acted as the factors of said Emmons prior to the time of his partnership with Richard B. and James W. Chandler, and for said firm of Emmons & Chandler after that time and until the closing of the account, Jan. 10, 1871; that during all this time it had been the usual course of business and the regular practice of the defendants to advance money to these parties to buy stock, relying upon the consignments to be made to them to cover such advances; that the defendants continued to make such advances after the thirteenth day of December, 1870, in the same manner as before, receiving consignments, and selling the same to cover their previous advances; that the indebtedness to the defendants at the time of the last shipments of stock was for such advances; that these advances were made by payment of drafts upon the defendants; that such drafts were drawn in the name of Emmons, as well after as before the formation of the copartnership of Emmons & Chandler; that the bank business of the firm of Emmons & Chandler was done at the First National Bank of Madison, Wis., in the name of Emmons alone, as well after as before the formation of said copartnership, and that the drafts upon the defendants usually came through said bank; that their ledger, introduced in evidence, correctly shows the sums advanced by them upon drafts since the 13th December, 1870; that such advances were made in good faith, and in the usual and ordinary course of business, and relying upon consignments to be made to the defendants to cover such advances; that there was no such arrangement for the payment of the indebtedness to the defendants made about the 13th of December, 1870, or at any other time, between the defendants, or either of them, and said Emmons, Richard B. Chandler, and James W. Chandler, or either of them, as claimed by the plaintiff; that said firm of Emmons & Chandler did not dissolve upon or about the 13th December, 1870; that said James W. Chandler did not go out before that time, but that certainly James W. Chandler, and probably Richard B. Chandler, continued to be interested in business with said Emmons subsequently to that time, and continued so interested till the time of the closing of the account with defendants, Jan. 10, 1871; that the transfer of the account on the book of the defendants from the name of Emmons & Chandler to that of Norton Emmons was made at the request of said Emmons and the Chandlers; that the reason given to defendants for such request was, that all drafts were drawn in the name of Emmons alone; their bank business of Madison, Wis., was done in his name, and they desired their account on the defendants' books to correspond; that defendants had no idea that the firm of Emmons & Chandler was dissolved, or that their dealings with said firm were thereby brought to a close, or that, by making such a change, they released either of the Chandlers, but regarded the transfer simply as a change in the manner of keeping their books; that the receipt or release to Richard B. Chandler was not given to him until about the middle of January, 1871, after the account with the defendants was closed; that it was antedated at the request of said Richard B. Chandler; that it was given by the defendants unhesitatingly, and with but little inquiry into the reasons of Chandler for wishing the same antedated, because, at the time it was actually given, their account was paid in full; that business was conducted in the same manner subsequently to the 13th December, 1870, as before that time, and the defendants supposed they were doing business with the firm of Emmons & Chandler up to the time the account was closed, and, until such time, knew of nothing from which they could infer the dissolution of said firm; that there was nothing unusual about the size or quality of the last shipments, and the same were not, nor was any part of them, sold by the defendants under any arrangement with said Emmons and the Chandlers, or either of them, that the proceeds should be used to close up the account with the defendants; that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
118 cases
  • Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Marland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • January 22, 1917
    ...are uniformly held not to be 'practice, pleadings and forms and modes of proceeding ' within the meaning of the act, Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S. 426, 442, 23 L.Ed. 286; Grimes Dry Goods Co. v. Malcolm, 164 U.S. 483, Sup.Ct. 158, 41 L.Ed. 524; and the right of federal courts, both trial and app......
  • Fisher v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1946
    ...their function wisely and well without this aid. In such cases, chance, mistake, or caprice, may determine the result.' Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S. 426, 439, 23 L.Ed. 286. Only the other day we exercised our supervisory responsibility over the lower federal courts to assure against the possibi......
  • Spies v. People (In re Anarchists)
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • September 14, 1887
    ...is once established, any act of one of the conspirators in the prosecution of the enterprise is considered the act of all. Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U. S. 426; 1 Whart. Crim. Law, (6th Ed.) § 702; 3 Greenl. Ev. § 94. It makes no difference that Parsons may not have been present in the basement of......
  • United States v. Weber
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • December 30, 1970
    ...testimony was competent and within the ruling of the cases. American Fur Co. v. United States, 2 Pet. 358, 7 L.Ed. 450. Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S. 426, 438, 23 L.Ed. 286; Wiborg v. United States, 163 U.S. 632, 16 S.Ct. 1127, 41 L.Ed. Recent Supreme Court cases — Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT