Legal Opinion

Vreeland v. Hyde

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided October 15, 1829PublishedCited by 7 opinions

This was an action of assumpsit,brought by the endorsee against the defendant, as endorser of a promissory note of the following tenor. New-York, June 18, 1827. On demand, we promise to pay to the order of Simeon Hyde, eight hundred dollars, for value received, with interest from date, without default or defalcation. Hyde & Banta. Witness, John V. Bantav The note was endorsed by the defendant, and the following memorandum was entered upon the back of it.

Read the full summary

This was an action of assumpsit,brought by the endorsee against the defendant, as endorser of a promissory note of the following tenor. New-York, June 18, 1827. On demand, we promise to pay to the order of Simeon Hyde, eight hundred dollars, for value received, with interest from date, without default or defalcation. Hyde & Banta. Witness, John V. Bantav The note was endorsed by the defendant, and the following memorandum was entered upon the back of it. “ Paid, June 18, “ 1828, one year’s interest on this note, which is 48 dollars.” At the trial of the cause, the subscribing witness, being…

1Per curiam

This was an action against the defendant, as endorser of a promissory note, dated the 18th day of June, 1827, payable *431on demand, with interest. The defendant resided in New-York, and the plaintiff in the state of New-Jersey, about 12 miles from the city. The demand of payment, of the makers, was made on the 23d of March, 1829, and notice given to the defendant, as endorser, on the next day. The question is, whether the defendant was discharged by the delay in demanding payment.

It is settled in our courts, that a note, payable on demand, must be presented for payment within a reasonable time,…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Merritt v. . ToddNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
  2. Lockwood v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1847
  3. Thurston v. M'KownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
  4. Mudd v. HarperCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1851
  5. Castle v. CandeeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1844

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API