Gaytes v. Hibbard
U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois
[This was a suit by Carol Gaytes, assignee of the Mercantile Mutual Fire Insurance Company, against William G. Hibbard and Franklin F. Spencer.] Demurrer to declaration upon the following instrument, given for premium upon a policy of insurance: “For value received in policy No. 73, dated 12 August, 1S65, issued by the Mercantile Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Chicago, 'we promise to pay said company, or the treasurer for the time being, the sum of two hundred and fifty…
Read the full summary
[This was a suit by Carol Gaytes, assignee of the Mercantile Mutual Fire Insurance Company, against William G. Hibbard and Franklin F. Spencer.] Demurrer to declaration upon the following instrument, given for premium upon a policy of insurance: “For value received in policy No. 73, dated 12 August, 1S65, issued by the Mercantile Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Chicago, 'we promise to pay said company, or the treasurer for the time being, the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars, in such portions and at such times as the directors of said company may, agreeably to their act of incorporation,…
1Opinion of the Court
DRUMMOND, District Judge.
In support of the demurrer it is insisted that the instrument sued on is not a promissory note; that it is not certain as to the person to whom the money was payable, it being to the Mercantile Mutual Fire Insurance Company or its treasurer for the time being. Secondly, that it is not certain as to the time of payment, thefe being no time specified in the instrument when the money was to be paid. *126And, thirdly, that there is no certainty In relation to the fact of payment at all.
NOTE. A written promise to pay a sum “in such manner and proportions, and at such time and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- President of the Goshen & Minisink Turnpike Road v. HurtinNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- Washington County Mutual Ins. v. MillerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
- Walker v. PhillipsTexas Supreme Court · 1872