Stow v. Wadley
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, dated \7tb. June, 1808, by which the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff 111 dollars and 53 cents, m one year from the date. I1 appeared that the plaintiff, at the time the note was given, declared to the defendant, that there had been a mistake in the settlement of accounts between them, about four years before, of 84 dollars, in favour of the J „ defendant.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, dated \7tb. June, 1808, by which the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff 111 dollars and 53 cents, m one year from the date. I1 appeared that the plaintiff, at the time the note was given, declared to the defendant, that there had been a mistake in the settlement of accounts between them, about four years before, of 84 dollars, in favour of the J „ defendant. The defendant denied that there had been . , . , . - . any mistake; but it was agreed between the parties, that the defendant should give a note to the plaintiff for the ¿0parg…
1Per curiam
The case shows that there was no consideration fo*r the note. Ten Eyck declined to act, and would not receive the parol evidence that the defendant offered. The defendant was not in default, and his default, or a decision of Ten Eyck against him, was a condition precedent to the validity and binding,operation of the note. The verdict ought to be set aside, and a new trial awarded, with costs, to abide the event.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Thomas v. WhallonNew York Supreme Court · 1857
- Pacific Mutual Insurance v. GuseSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Young v. HoglanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877