Schoonmaker v. Roosa
New York Supreme Court
IX ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Ulster county. The plaintiff in error brought an action of assumpsit, in the court below," against the defendants in error, on a promissory note, dated the 10th of June, 1813, by which the defendants promised to pay to the plaintiff, or order, on demand, 1,500 dollars, for value received.
Read the full summary
IX ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Ulster county. The plaintiff in error brought an action of assumpsit, in the court below," against the defendants in error, on a promissory note, dated the 10th of June, 1813, by which the defendants promised to pay to the plaintiff, or order, on demand, 1,500 dollars, for value received. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and gave notice that, on the trial of the cause, they would give in evidence that on the 10th of June, 1813, the plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement, by which they appointed Lucas Elmendorf sole arbitrator to…
1Per curiam
The consideration of a promissory note, as between the original parties themselves, may be inquired into; and if there is no consideration for the promise, it is nudum pactum, and cannot be enforced at law. (Pearson v. Pearson, 7 Johns. Rep. 26. Ten Eyck v. Vanderpool, 8 Johns. Rep. 120. Rann v. Hughes, 7 Term Rep. 350. note. S. C. 4 Bro. P. C. 27. 2d ed. by Tomlins.) In the case of Rann v. Hughes, Baron Skynner, who delivered the very able and lucid opinion in the House of Lords, savs, “ It is undoubtedly true, that *242every man is, by the law of nature, bound, to fulfil his engage ments. it is…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Adams v. HullNew York Supreme Court · 1845
- Candor & Henderson's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1856
- Woodrow v. O'ConnerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- Conaway v. OdbertWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1867
- Germania Bank v. MichaudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.