Furman v. Haskin
New York Supreme Court
On demurrer. Tbe plaintiff declared against the defendant, as maker of a promissory note, dated on the 19th of July, 1793, payable on demand to "William Buckle 01 order, and by him, on the same day, endorsed to the plaintiff. To this the defendant pleaded, 1st. Non assumpsit, 2d. The statute of limitations; 3d.
Read the full summary
On demurrer. Tbe plaintiff declared against the defendant, as maker of a promissory note, dated on the 19th of July, 1793, payable on demand to "William Buckle 01 order, and by him, on the same day, endorsed to the plaintiff. To this the defendant pleaded, 1st. Non assumpsit, 2d. The statute of limitations; 3d. That he was, on the first day of January, 1793, indebted to Buckle in the sum for which the note was made, and on that day executed a bond to Anthony Franklin, Joseph Bird, and Edmund Prior, for £9,000 for and on account of the money due to Buckle, and of all other debts which he, the…
1Opinion of the Court
Kent, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the court. The two objections to this plea, which require consideration, are, 1. That the plaintiff being an innocent endorsee without notice, is not affected by the transactions which took place between Buckle and the defendant; 2. That there is no venue in that part of the plea, alleging the time when the note was negotiated. As to the first, it is a general rule, that a note payable on demand must be presented for payment within a reasonable time, or it will be considered as a note out of time, and dishonored. Chitty, 114,. 146.(a) *372Wbat is a reasonable…
2Cited by26 opinions
- Herrick v. . WoolvertonNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Merritt v. . ToddNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Lockwood v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1847
- Bridge v. JohnsonCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1830
- Sanford v. MicklesNew York Supreme Court · 1809
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.