Foquet v. Hoadley
Supreme Court of Connecticut
THIS was an action on a promissory note, dated at Platts-burgh, the 9th of June, 1815, in and by which, the defendant promised the plaintiff, to pay to him, for value received, the sum of 129 dollars, and 14 cents, on demand.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action on a promissory note, dated at Platts-burgh, the 9th of June, 1815, in and by which, the defendant promised the plaintiff, to pay to him, for value received, the sum of 129 dollars, and 14 cents, on demand. The defendant pleaded, 1st, That on the 1st of July, 1815, he enclosed in a letter, directed to the plaintiff at Plattsburgh, in the state of New-York, and deposited in the post-office at ,bfew-London, in this state, three fifty dollar treasury notes, of the value of 150 dollars, which, through the regular course of the mail, the plaintiff, on the 15th of the same month,…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
The defendant, in his first and third pleas, alleged, that he transmitted to the plaintiff, three fifty dollar treasury notes, and that the plaintiff received them, in full1 satisfaction of the note in suit.
To establish these facts, he offered in evidence the deposi- j tion of Everitt Howard, who testified, that the plaintiff requested of Him, to send him cash per mail. Treasury notes are not cash ; and the testimony offered conduced to prove no averment contained in the aforesaid pleas. The deposition, therefore, was rightly rejected,
In the second and fourth pleas, the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Haggerty v. FosterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Ulman & Co. v. Briggs, Payne & Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1880