Monroe v. Hoff
New York Supreme Court
Assumpsit, tried at the Onondaga circuit, in April, id46, before Whiting, Cir. J. The declaration was for goods sold, and on the guaranty of a promissory note. Plea, non-assumpsit.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, tried at the Onondaga circuit, in April, id46, before Whiting, Cir. J. The declaration was for goods sold, and on the guaranty of a promissory note. Plea, non-assumpsit. The plaintiffs proved that on the 15th day of June, 1842, the defendant being desirous of obtaining some goods from their store for one Newell, of whom he was purchasing some property and who was willing to receive goods in payment, applied to the plaintiffs to sell him the goods, and offered to transfer to them a note for $75 which he held against J. F. Sprague, not then due. The plaintiffs were not acquainted…
1Opinion of the CourtWhittlesey, J.
The transaction between the plaintiffs and the defendant ivas really a sale of goods by the former to the latter. The defendant did not wish to take or select them at the time of the contract, and he took an order or due bill that he or the person to whom he might wish to transfer the due bill could select them as he pleased thereafter. It was not the less a sale of goods to the defendant because ho took a due bill instead of the goods, and an action can be sustained for goods sold.
The doctrine now is that if the note of a third person is taken, either for goods sold at-the time of making the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Packer v. WillsonNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Butler v. HaightNew York Supreme Court · 1832
3Cited by9 opinions
- Ford v. MitchellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1862
- Hoefliger v. WellsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879
- Kephart v. ButcherSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- D. Foster & Co. v. SpencerHawaii Supreme Court · 1875
- Darnall v. . MorehouseNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.