Doremus & Wilbur v. Selden
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit, tried at the Nem-York sittings, in December, 1819, before Mr. Justice Woodworth, The declaration contained the common money counts. The plaintiffs were the third endorsers of a promissory note, dated the 8th of July, 1816, drawn by Davison, Day, and Pierson, by which they promised to pay, sixty days after date, to the order of Israel Canfield and Co., eight hundred dollars, for value received.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, tried at the Nem-York sittings, in December, 1819, before Mr. Justice Woodworth, The declaration contained the common money counts. The plaintiffs were the third endorsers of a promissory note, dated the 8th of July, 1816, drawn by Davison, Day, and Pierson, by which they promised to pay, sixty days after date, to the order of Israel Canfield and Co., eight hundred dollars, for value received. The note was en-3 dorsed by the payees to Andrew Ogden and Co., and by • J r J b ’ •; them to the plaintiffs, who endorsed the same to Bostwick and Sterling. The note…
1Opinion of the Court
Spencer, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. The principal question is, whether the plaintiffs can maintain a joint suit, on the evidence in this casé ?
The plaintiffs’ right to recover does not depend on a joint liability, as endorsers of the note, on which the defendants were prior endorsers, but on the fact, whether the plaintiffs jointly paid Ihe note: Nor does this cause involve the question how far a negotiable note may be deemed a payment of a precedent debt, when taken as payment. The plaintiffs were partners, and prior to any payment of the note endorsed by them, and which is…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Whipple v. BriggsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- Thomas v. CarterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1891
- Bunker v. TuftsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1867
- Crease v. BabcockMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1846
- Conner v. HutchinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859