Snyder v. Findley
Supreme Court of New Jersey
THIS was an action of indeb. assumpsit -brought to recover £90. the price of two horses which Snyder had sold to Findley.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of indeb. assumpsit -brought to recover £90. the price of two horses which Snyder had sold to Findley. The defendant pleaded nil debet and non assumpsit, and in support of his defence gave in evidence a receipt dated August 26,1783, by which Snyder acknowledged to have received a note of Bartholomew Harris for £70. in full of the balance due him on die sale of two horses, which note he was to “ take at his own risk, and collect or lose the same without calling on Findley for the money.” The plaintiff then offered to prove that Harris the drawer of the note assigned in…
1Opinion of the Court
Kinsey C. J.
We are all of opinion the evidence is admissible. In the case of Collins v. Blanturn (b) where a similar question arose, every argument which has been urged on this occasion was eagerly pressed, but unsuccessfully. In the case of Stratton v. Rastall which has been cited, it was permitted to show that, although a receipt was signed by two executors, tbe money was received only by one. It is contrary to every principle of law and equity to permit a man to shelter himself behind his own fraudulent acts. It is the du - ty of a court of justice (as Wilmot C. J. says) to brush away the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- M'lanahan v. the Universal Insurance CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Tobey v. BarberNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Putnam v. LewisNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Brower v. JonesNew York Supreme Court · 1808
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bonfiglioli USA, Inc. v. Midwest Engineered Components, Inc.District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2025