Seacord v. Burling
New York Supreme Court
Assumpsit, tried at the Westchester circuit in April, 1845, before Ruggles, late Cir. J. The declaration contained the common money counts, and annexed to it was the copy of a written instrument purporting to be signed by the defendant, as follows: “ $5000. On demand, I promise to pay Benjamin Seacord or order, five thousand dollars, value received, with six per cent interest; but no demand is to be made as long as the interest is paid.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, tried at the Westchester circuit in April, 1845, before Ruggles, late Cir. J. The declaration contained the common money counts, and annexed to it was the copy of a written instrument purporting to be signed by the defendant, as follows: “ $5000. On demand, I promise to pay Benjamin Seacord or order, five thousand dollars, value received, with six per cent interest; but no demand is to be made as long as the interest is paid. New Rochelle, May 1, 1842. (Signed) James Burling.” Plea, non-assumpsit. The plaintiff proved the signature of the defendant, and gave evidence touching a…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, McKissock, J.
Whether the paper given in evidence was a promissory note is a question of some difficulty. The first impression would certainly favor the notion that it was, but on a closer analysis of its terms it would seem that it was not. A promise to pay money, to be valid as a note, must be for such payment absolutely, and not on any contingency. That is an essential requisite of a note, and it is absolutely necessary to render such securities fit for a commercial currency. For such use they must be precise" and certain, and subject to no condition, so as to command the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Moore v. EdwardsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
- Duffield v. . JohnstonNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Smalley v. EdeyIllinois Supreme Court · 1853