Henry & Emott v. Bishop
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of covenant, tried at the Washington circuit, in June, 1827, before the Hon. Reuben Hyde Walworth, then one of the circuit judges. The action was brought for the recovery of $200, stipulated damages for the non-performance of covenants.
Read the full summary
This was an action of covenant, tried at the Washington circuit, in June, 1827, before the Hon. Reuben Hyde Walworth, then one of the circuit judges. The action was brought for the recovery of $200, stipulated damages for the non-performance of covenants. On the trial of the cause, Zebulon R. Shipherd, Esq. whose name, together with that of two other persons, appeared as subscribing witnesses to the instrument declared on, testified that he saw the defendant execute it; that he saw the other . subscribing witnesses subscribe their names as such witnesses; that he executed it himself as the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Savage, Ch. J.
In England a written instrument, whether sealed or not, must be proved by the subscribing witness, if there be one, and his attendance can be procured. In this state, the rulp has been relaxed as to instruments not under seal, (Hall v. Phelps, 2 Johns. R. 451;) or at least in regard to negotiable paper. (16 Johns. R. 201.) In the first of these cases, Spencer, justice, says, “ The confession of a party that he gave a note, or any instrument precisely identified, is as high proof as that derived from a subscribing witness. The notion that those who attest an…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Jackson ex dem. Varick v. WaldronCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1834
- Butler v. BensonNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament & the Codicil Thereto of McDonoughAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Bowling v. HaxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Lyon v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1851
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.