Case ID: njl_88/html/0370-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HALL MAMMOTH INCUBATOR COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. WILLIAM F. STANBERY, RESPONDENT.
    Submitted July 6, 1915
    Decided October 15, 1915.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which court the following per curiam was filed:
    “We are unable to sustain the plaintiff’s judgment.
    “The incubator, to1 recover part of the price of which this suit is brought, was sold to Mr. Poucher. The debt, originally, at least, was his.
    ■ “Defendant, in. his own behalf, never had any business dealing with the plaintiff.
    “True, the day following Poucher’s purchase, a corporation was formed, in which defendant became interested financially, and of which he was elected president.
    “It may be assumed that the corporation assumed Mr. Poucher’s obligations, and it may be assumed that defendant borrowed money of the corporation and that at his request the payment of an installment to the plaintiff was withheld.
    “But we fail to- find in the evidence anything to charge the defendant personally with the payment of plaintiff’s debt. There is no evidence that he agreed to pay or assumed the plaintiff’s debt.
    “The judgment will be reversed and a new trial awarded.”
    
      For the appellant, Robert Newton Crane.
    
    For the respondent, Codington & Blatz.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison', Swayze, Parker, Mikturst, Kalisch, YredefBURGH, HeEPENHEIMER, WILLIAMS, JJ. 10.

For reversal—None.