President, Directors & Co. of Bank of Niagara v. Rosevelt
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
On appeal from the court of chancery. The case is fully stated in 1 Hopk. Ch. Rep. 579 to 582. The decree below was against the appellants, the reasons in support of which were now given by Sandford, late chancellor, as in 1 Hopk. Ch. Rep. 5S3 584.
1Opinion of the CourtWoodworth, J.
(after stating the facts.) I have stated so much of the pleadings, as I deem necessary to present the questions on which this cause' depends. The hearing in the court below, was on bill and answer; no testimony having been taken on either side. In such cases, the answer is to be taken as true.
From the statement made it will be perceived, that the material point is, whether the respondents are entitled to have the amount of 3,000 dollars advanced by the mortgagors in money and goods, applied as a set-off against the mortgage. It will be conceded, I apprehend, that if was not competent for the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. KirkpatrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Allen v. CulverNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Yates v. JoyceNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Henry v. BrownNew York Supreme Court · 1821
3Cited by1 opinion
- King v. Milford National BankNew York Supreme Court · 1938