Benjamin v. Arnold
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the trial of this action at the circuit, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. This action was brought on a joint and several promissory note, reading as follows: “ $1,000. “ One year from date, for value received, we, or either of us, promise to pay Phoebe Benjamin or bearer one thousand dollars, with interest. “LYMAN ARNOLD. “CHARLES M. SHTTLTS. “HIRAM SHAVER. “ GEORGE W. SNELL.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the trial of this action at the circuit, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. This action was brought on a joint and several promissory note, reading as follows: “ $1,000. “ One year from date, for value received, we, or either of us, promise to pay Phoebe Benjamin or bearer one thousand dollars, with interest. “LYMAN ARNOLD. “CHARLES M. SHTTLTS. “HIRAM SHAVER. “ GEORGE W. SNELL.” The defendants Shults, Shaver and Snell alleged in their answer, and offered to prove upon the trial, that they signed the note simply as…
1Opinion of the Court
Gilbert, J.:
Upon a consideration of the authorities in this country and in England, it must he regarded as still an open question, whether the evidence offered and rejected in this case was not admissible.* At first blush, the reception of such evidence would not seem to contradict the contract created by the note, which is nothing more than an absolute promise to pay a sum of money, but to lay the foundation of a defense resting on equitable rules, wholly independent of the formal contract. But as this court, in the third department, in a recent case,† has decided the precise point, we think…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Campbell v. TateNew York Supreme Court · 1872