Breed v. Cook & Cadwell
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. The defendants in error brought an action in the court belowagainst the plaintiff in error, forpart of the price of a horse sold by them to him.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. The defendants in error brought an action in the court belowagainst the plaintiff in error, forpart of the price of a horse sold by them to him. The price of the horse was 65 dollars ; , in part payment tor which tne defendant below delivered to _ i** sy* . , n — -. _ the plamtms a promissory note lor 23 dollars, drawn by one Fillmore, payable in six months to the defendant or bearer, When the note became due, Fillmore was utterly insolvent, It was proved, on the part of the defendant below, that at the time of the sale of the horse, the…
1Per curiam
The justice erred. Admitting the rule of law to be as he apprehended, yet he clearly misapplied it; for the evidence in this case showed very satisfactorily that the vendors agreed to take the note at their own risk. The purchaser told them expressly that he would not endorse it, and there is no pretence of fraud. The decision in the case of Whitbeck v. Van Ness, (9 Johns. Rep. 409.) gives the true rule on this point, which is, that if a vendor of goods receive from the purchaser the note of a third person, at the time of the sale, (such note not being forged, and there being no fraud or…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Hall v. . StevensNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Ford v. MitchellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1862
- Hoefliger v. WellsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879
- Combs v. BatemanNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Bell v. . BallanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1828
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.