Farmers' & Manufacturers' Bank v. Whinfield
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the Dutchess circuit in March, 1839, before the Hon. Charles H. Ruggles, one of the circuit judges. The plaintiffs claimed to recover against the defendant as the endorser of a promissory note for $600, made by Thomas Williams and George Williams, dated 4th March, 1837, and payable 90 days after date.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the Dutchess circuit in March, 1839, before the Hon. Charles H. Ruggles, one of the circuit judges. The plaintiffs claimed to recover against the defendant as the endorser of a promissory note for $600, made by Thomas Williams and George Williams, dated 4th March, 1837, and payable 90 days after date. The defences set up, were : 1. That time of payment had been given to the drawers of the note without the consent of the endorser; and 2. That the plaintiffs had accepted a bond and warrant of attorney from the drawers, by virtue of which a judgment had…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cowen, J.
Several exceptions were taken on the trial of this cause, to the decisions of the judge, in admitting and denying evidence.
I. He excluded parol evidence, offered by the defendant to show the [ *423 ] plaintiff’s’ agreement with the makers that they *should have time for payment. It is true that the giving of the bond, warrant and specification, was sufficient consideration for the agreement, and there is nothing in its own nature to prevent its being by parol. After a promissory note is made and endorsed, the holder and maker may, without writing, stipulate on a proper…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Lavery v. CrookeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Prescott v. RobinsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1908
- Lipman Bros. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1953
- Ingersoll v. JonesNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Rosenberg v. SheahanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.