Phinney v. Earle
New York Supreme Court
¡IN ERROR., on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Earle z u sued Phinney, before the justice, on a promissory note, dated 7th December, 1810, for 13 dollars and 60 cents, payable on demand *° Allen or bearer, on which was endorsed one dollar and four cents, On the return of the summons, the defendant and his attorney appeared, and the constable who served the summons, said he would appear and answer for the plaintiff, if the defendant and his attar ey would take no…
Read the full summary
¡IN ERROR., on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Earle z u sued Phinney, before the justice, on a promissory note, dated 7th December, 1810, for 13 dollars and 60 cents, payable on demand *° Allen or bearer, on which was endorsed one dollar and four cents, On the return of the summons, the defendant and his attorney appeared, and the constable who served the summons, said he would appear and answer for the plaintiff, if the defendant and his attar ey would take no advantage of it, to which they agreed, and the constable then presented and declared upon the note; and the defendant pleaded…
1Per curiam
There is no error in the proceedings or judgment. The constable who served the process, did note appear and advocate” for the plaintiff, within the meaning of the .act. (Sess. 31. c. 204.) The statute refers to an appearance, at the trial of the cause. He merely appeared for him to present the note to the justice; and did not appear at the trial. The former judgment against Johnson, while holder of the note in question, was no bar to the plaintiff’s suit, because, under the special agreement to take payment of the note in ashes, the note was not negotiable after it was due, without being…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Robbins v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
- Miles v. PulverNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Haughawout v. RoyseMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Perry v. DickersonNew York City Court · 1880
- Baldwin v. WalsworthNew York Supreme Court · 1844