¶1I concur. I am also of the opinion that having accepted the charge, and undertaken the sale of the goods under the special contract testified to by the plaintiff, and with knowledge that the plaintiff was not the real owner, but merely a factor, the defendants, upon the proof as it now stands, are estopped from claiming that the goods were received by them as the property of the plaintiff individually.
5 Jones & S. 35
Ladd v. Arkell
The Superior Court of New York City
Decided January 31, 1874
The Superior Court of New York City · decided 1874-01-31
The summons in this action was for relief, and the complaint was as follows : “Thomas W. Ladd, the above named plaintiff, by Elias J. Beach, his attorney, complaining against James Arkell and William F. Tufts, the above named defendants, shows to the court as follows: ‘1 First.
Decided 1874-01-31