Olmsted v. Stewart
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiofd/ñ. tó a j.Ustieeis court. , . _ . . . , . The suit m the. court belojv was op. a promissory note execu- - > - * ted by Olmsted, the defendant, below, payable to Enos Stewart of bearer. C. the • plaintiffibgjow, As agent of E. Stezt* aRr. hud presented An Order on. the., defendant for the amount of an account due E. Stewart, and for which it was alleged that the note in question was given.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiofd/ñ. tó a j.Ustieeis court. , . _ . . . , . The suit m the. court belojv was op. a promissory note execu- - > - * ted by Olmsted, the defendant, below, payable to Enos Stewart of bearer. C. the • plaintiffibgjow, As agent of E. Stezt* aRr. hud presented An Order on. the., defendant for the amount of an account due E. Stewart, and for which it was alleged that the note in question was given. The defendant produced witnesses to prove that the order on which the’note was obtained was a forgery; but the justice, from his own inspection, decided that the note was genuine. The…
1Per curiam
The judgment in this case is clearly against evidence, with respect to the handwriting of Enos Stewart to the order. Two witnesses swore that they did not believe it to-be his writing; and that he uniformly wrote his name Steward, instead of Stewart; and the only evidence opposed to this was,, the opinion of the justice from comparing this writing with other writing admitted to be genuine. Whether the judgment ought to be reversed, on this ground, may be questionable. Bui the testimony offered to show that there was not so much due E. Stewart as the amount of the note, ought to have been…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Homer v. WallisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Van Wyck v. . McIntoshNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Perkins v. ChallisSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1818
- Russell v. FabyanSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853
- Wyck v. McIntoshNew York Court of Appeals · 1856