Arnold v. Crane
New York Supreme Court
IN error, from the court of common pleas of On- . Ait i si . i ii • iarzo county. Arnold sued Crane in the court below, in an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained the usual r counts for money lent, money paid, &c. and money had and received, &c. and an insimul computassent. Plea, non assumpsit, with notice.
Read the full summary
IN error, from the court of common pleas of On- . Ait i si . i ii • iarzo county. Arnold sued Crane in the court below, in an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained the usual r counts for money lent, money paid, &c. and money had and received, &c. and an insimul computassent. Plea, non assumpsit, with notice. At the trial of the cause, the plaintiff produced the depositions of Peny Brainerd and Jacob Brainerd, taken in the state of Connecticut, who testified that the plaintiff lent to the defendant, at three several times, the sum of one hundred dollars, for which he took his three…
1Per curiam
The testimony offered in the court below was competent to sustain the action, and ought to have gone to the jury under that direction. The plaintiff may give a note in evidence under the money counts. The original loan of 300 dollars was amply proved; and the defendant got possession of the notes given for the 300 dollars, by means of a base fraud, and there was no payment or extinguishment of the original debt. The testimony of Daniel and Caleb Brainerd, and of Hunn Munson, and the letter of the defendant, were conclusive *82proof, standing uncontradicted, that the notes were never paid, and…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Higgins v. Morrison'sCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1836
- Dowell v. BrownMississippi Supreme Court · 1849
- Hayward v. BathSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1857
- Vanauken v. HornbeckSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1833
- Emerine v. O'BrienOhio Supreme Court · 1881
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.