Barber v. Burrows
M. BARBER v. JONATHAN BURROWS, JOSEPH BAUQUIER and WILLIAM GWYNN
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
By the Court:
The instrument of September 2, 1872, was never completely executed. It is evident upon an inspection of the writing itself that it was intended to be signed by all the parties to the contract upon which it was indorsed. These parties were the two principals in the contract and the two sureties upon the bond attached to and forming a part of the contract. It was signed by but three of these persons.
As the contract for the extension of time was not complete, it was not obligatory.
Judgment and order denying a now trial affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.
Cited by
- Angell v. Rowlands Civ. 41007 · 1978-10-16
- American Aeronautics Corp. v. Grand Central Aircraft Co. Civ. 22170 · 1957-11-08
- In re Quartz Crystal Products Co. No. 44274 · 1947-06-06
- Anthony MacAroni Co. v. Nunziato Civ. 8804 · 1935-03-28
- Gelfan v. Bessolo & Gualano, Inc. Docket No. 7378. · 1932-08-01
- Winter v. Kitto Docket No. 6730. · 1929-08-08
- Eastern Outfitting Co., Inc. v. Myers Civ. No. 2481. · 1918-12-30
- Jackson v. Torrence Nos. 13133 and 13175 · 1890-04-01