Raymond v. Squire
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of covenant, for the breach of the coveaant of seisin in a deed, dated the 3d of January, 1810, exe- , , _ . . •. * T* euted by the defendant to the plaintiff for lands in Broome county.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of covenant, for the breach of the coveaant of seisin in a deed, dated the 3d of January, 1810, exe- , , _ . . •. * T* euted by the defendant to the plaintiff for lands in Broome county. The defendant pleaded, 1. Non est factum; 2. That the defendant was lawfully seised, &c.; 3. That the plaintiff, after the making of the deed, &c. and before the commencement of this suit, to wit, on the 10th of September, 1810, did, by a certain deed, &c. release to the defendant all his estate, right, Sec. claim and demands which he or his heirs, &c. could or might have of, in, or to, the…
1Per curiam
This court have gone so far as to recognise the rights and interest of the assignee of a chose in action, and to protect him against the fraud of the original contracting parties, when, the right and the fraud have both appeared upon the record. In the case of Andrews v. Beecker, (1 Johns. Cases, 411.) the defendant pleaded a release to a bond, and the replication stated that the bond was assigned to a third person, for whose benefit the suit was brought, before the execution of the release, and that the defendant had notice of it before the release, and the replication was held good upon…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Terwilliger v. Ontario, Carbondale & Scranton RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Bonney v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1856
- Gram v. CadwellNew York Supreme Court · 1826
- Dartmouth College v. WoodwardSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Lamkin v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1839
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.