Knapp v. Hyde
New York Supreme Court
A CTTOH upon a promissory note made by the defendant, ±iL dated at Auburn, 1ST. Y., January 12, 1866, by which he promised to pay to Spafford & Penfield, at the Cayuga County Hational Bank, $1073.09, and interest, one year from date. The plaintiff alleged, in the complaint, that the note was duly indorsed to him, by the payees, for value; that he was the lawful holder and owner thereof.
Read the full summary
A CTTOH upon a promissory note made by the defendant, ±iL dated at Auburn, 1ST. Y., January 12, 1866, by which he promised to pay to Spafford & Penfield, at the Cayuga County Hational Bank, $1073.09, and interest, one year from date. The plaintiff alleged, in the complaint, that the note was duly indorsed to him, by the payees, for value; that he was the lawful holder and owner thereof. He also alleged the presentment of the note for. payment, at maturity, demand and refusal of payment, protest, and notice thereof. The defense set up in the answer was that the note in suit was made in…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, E. Darwin Smith, J.
This case was rightly disposed of at the circuit. There was really nothing to submit to the jury on the question whether the defendant was compelled to sign the note in suit by fear or compulsion of the payee, which was the only question that the .circuit judge was asked to submit to the jury.
The defendant was not under arrest or imprisonment— was at his placó of residence in Auburn, in this State, where he clearly had committed no criminal offense for which he could be arrested or imprisoned. At most, he had made, as was alleged, some fraudulent…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Galusha v. ShermanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
- Morse v. WoodworthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Dunham v. . GriswoldNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Adams v. . Irving National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Cribbs v. SowleMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.