Brisbane v. Pratt
New York Supreme Court
' Assumpsit on a promissory note, endorsee against endorser. The note was made by E. T. Winslow to the order of S. Fox, and was endorsed in blank successively by him, by L. Chappaton, and by the defendant. It was for $1000, and was payable two months after date, and was dated August 13, 1837. Due proof of a presentment for payment and of notice of non-payment was made.
Read the full summary
' Assumpsit on a promissory note, endorsee against endorser. The note was made by E. T. Winslow to the order of S. Fox, and was endorsed in blank successively by him, by L. Chappaton, and by the defendant. It was for $1000, and was payable two months after date, and was dated August 13, 1837. Due proof of a presentment for payment and of notice of non-payment was made. The defendant set up, among other grounds of defence, that the note was given to secure a debt which the maker owed to one Albert Brisbane, which was in part for bank notes, of a less denomination than five dollars, issued by a…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Jewett, J.
I assume that before the defendant offered in evidence the sworn declarations of Albert Brisbane, the fact that he was the owner of the note when the declarations were made, and that it was then past due, had been proved, or that sufficient evidence on that point had been given to carry the question to the jury. The fact proposed to be proved by the declarations of A. Brisbane was material to the question which arose on the trial, viz. whether the consideration of the note or any part of it, consisted of bills issued by the Canada bank of denominations less than five…
2Cited by11 opinions
- New England Fire & Marine Insurance v. RobinsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1865
- Barton v. Port Jackson & Union Falls Plank Road Co.New York Supreme Court · 1854
- Gray v. . HookNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- Von Sachs v. . KretzNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Seeley v. EngellNew York Supreme Court · 1854
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.