Floyd v. Jayne
New York Court of Chancery
THE bill, filed November, 1821, stated, that a judgment had been lately recovered in the Court of Common Pleas, of Suffolk county, against the plaintiff, in the names of The defendants appeared and answered.
Read the full summary
THE bill, filed November, 1821, stated, that a judgment had been lately recovered in the Court of Common Pleas, of Suffolk county, against the plaintiff, in the names of The defendants appeared and answered. The answer of M, J. stated, that on the 22d of April, 1807, B. iZ., being indebted to him in the sum of 25 dollars, gave him the note in question in payment, and he paid the balance of 28 dollars and 6 cents in cash to B. if., who delivered the note, without writing, to him. That the plaintiff never paid him or B. H. the amount of the note, and that it was still unpaid; and he denied the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
This is a bill for a new trial, after a verdict in the Suffolk Common Pleas, upon a sealed note, amounting, in principal and interest, to 103 dollars 61 cents. The ground of the application is the discovery, since the verdict, of testimony to prove the payment of the note, and the want of power in that Court to grant a new trial, otherwise than for irregularity, as none of the Judges are of the degree of counsellor in the Supreme Court.
Anciently, Courts of equity exercised a familiar juris*482diction over trials at law, and compelled the successfnl party to submit to a new trial,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Simpson v. HartNew York Court of Chancery · 1814
3Cited by19 opinions
- Marshall v. HolmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Smith v. McLainWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1877
- Laithe v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
- Holton v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1901
- Martin v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1860
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.