Woodhull v. Holmes
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, for 375 dollars, dated 29th October, 1810, made by the defendant, payaable to Elisha Morrell, or order, 60 days after date, and endorsed by Morrell. The cause was tried at the New-York sittings, m November 2812, before Mr. Justice Spencer. The malting and endorsement of the note were proved.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, for 375 dollars, dated 29th October, 1810, made by the defendant, payaable to Elisha Morrell, or order, 60 days after date, and endorsed by Morrell. The cause was tried at the New-York sittings, m November 2812, before Mr. Justice Spencer. The malting and endorsement of the note were proved. The defendant then offered Morrell, the endorsor, as a witness, to prove _ iii *i ., that neither he nor the maker had ever received any consideration for the note; that he delivered it to a third person, in order to have it discounted at the bank,…
1Per curiam
The question arising upon this case is, not whether the facts offered in evidence by the defendant were not sufficient to cast upon the plaintiff the necessity of showing that he gave a valuable consideration for the note, but whether the endorsor was a competent witness to prove those facts. He was, called to prove, among other things, this fact, that after the note was duly executed and endorsed, it was delivered to a third person to carry to the bank for discount, and that instead of doing this, he placed it in the hands of a broker. Here was a breach of trust in the third person. The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Webb v. DanforthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1804
3Cited by23 opinions
- Clapp v. County of CedarSupreme Court of Iowa · 1857
- Wallace v. Branch BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1840
- Matthews v. PoythressSupreme Court of Georgia · 1848
- Griffith v. RefordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1829
- Hill v. ElySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.