Court Opinion

ID: 9841612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 19:59:38.501617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:23.099475
License: Public Domain

Judges Platt and Woodworth
concurred. There was some division in the court of errors; but the decree of the chancellor was affirmed.
This case is stronger than that under consideration, and turns on principles which decide it..
No doubt is expressed in it on the necessity of accounts being mutual, and being open and current, to bring them within the exception of the statute.
On a commercial question, especially on a question deeply interesting to merchants, and to merchants only, the settled law of New York is entitled to great respect elsewhere.
We have found no conflicting decision in any of the states.
The account from the books of the plaintiffs contains one item not founded on the contract for the freight of the barque Morning Star, the loss on the sloop Francis, insured by said Gray. But this item itself is not within the exception, and was abandoned by. the plaintiffs, who declared that their whole cause of action arose from the contract. The claim, to bring the case within the exception, rests entirely on the sale of the inward cargo. This single transaction has not equal (certainly not superior) pretensions to being an account-current between merchant and merchant, a case of mutual accounts between them, with the sale made by the Murrays, in Carter et al. v. Murray et al., of goods purchased on joint account, shipped to the defendants on joint account, and sold by the defendants on joint account.
We are of opinion that this action is not founded on an account concerning the trade of merchandise between, merchant and merchant, their factors or servants; and is not within the exception of the statute of limitations. . There is no error in the instructions given by the circuit court, and the judgment is affirmed, with costs.