Cumming & Cumming v. Hackley & Fisher
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit, for money paid by the plaintiff for the defendant. The cause was tried at New-York sittings in December, 1809, before Mr. Justice Yates. J The plaintiffs and defendants in 1803 and 1804, were, . . . ' respectively, partners in trade.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, for money paid by the plaintiff for the defendant. The cause was tried at New-York sittings in December, 1809, before Mr. Justice Yates. J The plaintiffs and defendants in 1803 and 1804, were, . . . ' respectively, partners in trade. On the 1st of September, 1803, -the defendant Hackley made three promissory . . _ ^ . -- - w . notes, amounting together to 1,556 dollars and 71 cents, *n t^e partnership name of Hackley U Fisher, in favour t^e plaintiffs, and for -the purpose, as he alleged, of being endorsed by the plaintiffs to N. Laurence, in renewal of a note…
1Per curiam
The plaintiffs sue in an action of as*206sumpsit for money paid for the defendants, and the ques-1 _ J \ \ tion is, whether .giving a bond in discharge of the liabi2jty of the plaintiffs, as endorsors of two negotiable notes drawn by the defendants, is to be considered as a payment of money.
As between the parties to the bond, it may be sufficient to discharge the simple contract debt, because it is changing the security to one of a higher nature. (6 Johns. Rep. 90. 2 Johns. Cas. 198. 5 Tyng’s Rep. 26.) But is such a change of security the actual payment of money under this count ? In Taylor v.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rankin v. BlackwellNew York Supreme Court · 1801
3Cited by21 opinions
- Ainslie v. WilsonNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Jackson ex dem. Glover v. WinslowNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Armstrong v. GarrowNew York Supreme Court · 1826
- Brundage v. . Village of Port ChesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Pitzer v. HarmonIndiana Supreme Court · 1846
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.