Eddy v. O'Hara
New York Supreme Court
Error from the Cayuga common pleas. O’Hara sued Eddy & Hathaway in a justice’s court. The suit was commenced by .summons, which was personally served upon Eddy, and by copy upon Hathaway. On the return day of the summons, Eddy alone appeared to defend. The plaintiff declared on a promissory note for $12,62f, purporting to have been made by the defendants and payable to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Error from the Cayuga common pleas. O’Hara sued Eddy & Hathaway in a justice’s court. The suit was commenced by .summons, which was personally served upon Eddy, and by copy upon Hathaway. On the return day of the summons, Eddy alone appeared to defend. The plaintiff declared on a promissory note for $12,62f, purporting to have been made by the defendants and payable to the plaintiff. The note was produced, and on it were two endorsements, one of 68 cents in shoemaking, and the other of $2, damage done by hogs in corn field. Eddy pleaded the general issue and tender. The issues were tried by a…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Savage, Ch. J.
It has been often decided in the English courts that the payment of money into court, which should follow a plea of tender, admits that the plaintiff has a right of action. 2 T. R. 464. 9 East, 326. 6 id. 570. 2 id. 128. In this court, also it has been decided that the payment of money into court is an admission of the cause of action alleged in the declaration. 7 Johns. R. 315, 18. The same facts are admitted by the tender out of court as are admitted by payment of money into court.
The statute under which these proceedings were had is as follows : “ If process…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Hutchinson v. City of ParkersburgWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1884
- Gilkeson v. SmithWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1879
- Wilder v. SeelyeNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Crandall v. BeachNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Denver, South Park & Pacific Railroad v. HarpSupreme Court of Colorado · 1882
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.