Keith v. Jones
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained several counts. The first was on a-promissory note, under statute> dated the 17th May, 1810, by which the defendant, ^°r va'ue received, promised to pay the plaintiff or bearer, forty-four dollars, by the first day of October next, with use, to be paid York state bills or specie. The other counts were for goods sold and delivered, money paid, money lent, &c. The defendant demurred to the declaration.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained several counts. The first was on a-promissory note, under statute> dated the 17th May, 1810, by which the defendant, ^°r va'ue received, promised to pay the plaintiff or bearer, forty-four dollars, by the first day of October next, with use, to be paid York state bills or specie. The other counts were for goods sold and delivered, money paid, money lent, &c. The defendant demurred to the declaration. Foot, in support of the demurrer, cited 1 Rev. Laws, 229, Chitty on Bills, 17. 34.
1Per curiam
The first count in the declaration, and to which there is a general demurrer, is good. The note therein stated is a negotiable note, under the statute; and being declared to be paya* *121ble in York state bills or specie, is the same thing as being made payable in lawful current money of the state ; for the bills mentioned mean bank paper, which is here, in conformity with common usage and common understanding, regarded as cash.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
2Cited by9 opinions
- Klauber v. BiggerstaffWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879
- Huse v. HamblinSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- Farwell v. WhiteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1842
- Leiber v. GoodrichNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- Butler v. PaineSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1863
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.