Watkinson v. Inglesby & Stokes
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration was on two promissory notes, one of them dated the 24th December, 1807, for 373 dollars and 62 cents, payable to the plaintiff, or order, 60 days after date; the other was dated the 17th January, 1808, for 564 dollars and 26 cents, payable in 60 days.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration was on two promissory notes, one of them dated the 24th December, 1807, for 373 dollars and 62 cents, payable to the plaintiff, or order, 60 days after date; the other was dated the 17th January, 1808, for 564 dollars and 26 cents, payable in 60 days. Inglesby separately pleaded non assumpsit, with notice of a set-off ; and Stokes, afterwards, put in a plea, puis darrein continuance, as of the second Monday of November^, which stated,- that on the 19th September, 1808, he and Inglesby, being unable to pay their debts, did agree to and with the…
1Opinion of the CourtVan Ness, J.
This is a plea of accord and satisfaction, and I think it is suEciently pleaded. There is more nicety than good sense in some of the cases on this subject. Accords are favoured in law, and if so, they ought not to be too rigorously expounded. The agreement was good. It was to assign stock in trade and outstanding debts. Now we cannot say, as the court said of an equity of redemption, in Preston v. Chrisomas, (2 Wils. 86.) that this was nothing in law. Lord Coke says, (1 Inst. 212. b.) that the acceptance of a bond in satisfaction of the money is good. The plaintiff agreed to receive such…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Lange v. PerleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Seymour v. GoodrichSupreme Court of Virginia · 1885
- Strang v. HolmesNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Frentress v. MarkleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1850
- Heirn v. CarronMississippi Supreme Court · 1848
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.