People v. Walbridge
New York Supreme Court
Case brought. up from the Rensselaer oyer and terminer for the advice of this court. The defendant was indicted, for ^at on th® 20th day of April, 1824, he did buy of one J. B. Souza a certain promissory note, bearing date the 14th April, *824, made by one William McMurray, for the sum of $125, 50, payable to A. V. Adriance or order in ninety days, endorsed by the payee to Souza, who was the holder and proprietor thereof until the purchase thereof by the defendant, f°r a…
Read the full summary
Case brought. up from the Rensselaer oyer and terminer for the advice of this court. The defendant was indicted, for ^at on th® 20th day of April, 1824, he did buy of one J. B. Souza a certain promissory note, bearing date the 14th April, *824, made by one William McMurray, for the sum of $125, 50, payable to A. V. Adriance or order in ninety days, endorsed by the payee to Souza, who was the holder and proprietor thereof until the purchase thereof by the defendant, f°r a good and valuable consideration; he, the said defendant, at the time of such purchase, being an attorney and counsellor of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Savage, Ch. J.
This case came before us heretofore on a demurrer to the indictment. (6 Cowen, 512.) We then considered the indictment good, and it was carried down to the oyer and terminer for trial; the jury have passed on the fact of the purchase of the note, charged in the first count. The question is again presented, whether the indictment charges any offence punishable by law.
The substance of the first section of the act rejecting superfluous verbage is, that no attorney or counsellor shall buy any bond, bill, promissory note, bill of exchange, book debt or other chose in…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Watson's Executors v. McLarenNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Hall v. BartlettNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Mann v. FairchildNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Mann v. FairchildNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Mann v. FairchildNew York Supreme Court · 1848