Bank of Orange County v. Haight
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, Jried at the Orange circuit in September, 1833, before the Hon. Charles Rugóles, one of the circuit judges. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs as endorsees of a promissory note, made by the defendants, bearing date 15th April 1825, payable 90 days after date.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, Jried at the Orange circuit in September, 1833, before the Hon. Charles Rugóles, one of the circuit judges. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs as endorsees of a promissory note, made by the defendants, bearing date 15th April 1825, payable 90 days after date. The defendants pleaded that the cause of action mentioned in the declaratian did not accrue to the plaintiffs at any time within six years next before the commencement of the suit; to which the plaintiffs replied that the cause of action did accrue within six years before the commencement of the suit,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Nelson, J.
Under any aspect in which this case can be viewed, the ruling at the trial was correct. There was a defect in the proof. The original or an authenticated copy of the testatum capias should have been produced. 7 Johns. R. 19. Without proof of the writ upon which the defendants were arrested, and that it was a continuance of the suit commenced by the capias issued and returned non sunt, the plea of the statute of limitations was a bar to the action. 5 Cowen, 526. 6 id. 471. 3 Wendell, 472. 5 id. 63. All these cases establish the law on this point, and show the necessity…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Soulden v. Van RensselaerNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Davis & Center v. WestNew York Supreme Court · 1830
3Cited by4 opinions
- Blair v. CaryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1859
- Koepke v. BradleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Richmond v. LittleNew York Supreme Court · 1841
- Swift v. VaughnNew York Supreme Court · 1844