Legal Opinion
Gillespie v. . Torrance
New York Court of Appeals
Decided September 5, 1862PublishedCited by 100 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The defence in this case is not founded on a failure of the consideration of the note, otherwise than by a defect in the quality of the timber for which it was given. That being so, if there was neither warranty nor fraud in the sale of the timber, the defect in quality constitutes no defence. (Seixas v. Woods, 2 Caines, 48; Sweet v. Colgate, 20 John., 196; Welsh v. Carter, 1 Wend., 185; Johnson v.Titus, 2 Hill, 606.) The answer does not allege fraud in the transaction, and unless it shows a warranty of the quality of the timber, it presents no defence to the note, either partial or total.…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Thornton v. WynnSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Lindsay v. Jackson & McJimpseyNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Reab v. McAlisterCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1831
- Simson v. HartCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1816
- Muller v. . EnoNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by100 opinions
- United States Ex Rel. Johnson v. Morley Const. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1938
- Walcutt v. Clevite Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1963
- Seibert v. . DunnNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Richard Deeves & Son v. Manhattan Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
- Marvin v. . Universal Life Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1881
95 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.