New York Supreme Court, 1894

Whitney v. Wardell

Whitney v. Wardell
New York Supreme Court · Decided May 8, 1894 · Herrick
28 N.Y.S. 1118; 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 885 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

John Rusk (A. T. Clearwater, of counsel), for appellant., Eldorous Dayton, for respondent.

Whitney v. Wardell

Opinion of the Court

HERRICK, J.

I think the judgment should be affirmed. There is nothing in the case to show that Whitney advanced any money, gave credit, or accepted the note upon which the action is brought, in reliance upon the statement that Wardell was a member of the firm of W. J. Caywood & Co., or was in any way misled by any “holding out” by Wardell that he was a member of such firm. Lawrence v. Brown, 5 N. Y. 394; Poillon v. Secor, 61 N. Y. 456; Pringle v. Leverich, 48 N. Y. Super. Ct. 90; Du Bois v. Lamson, 18 Wkly. Dig. 490; Vibbard v. Roderick, 51 Barb. 616; Irvin v. Conklin, 36 Barb. 64. Judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.