Meghan v. Mills
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought on a note or due bill, . in the following words: Due Henry Meghan, one hundred and seventy dollars, value received. • Albany, October 29, 1810. John Mills.” ' At the trial, the defendant gave in evidence a receipt, as fob-lows : c< Received, New-Yorlc, November’ 28,1810, of John Mills, one hundred and seventy dollars, being the amount of a due bill, in the hands of Wrn. Leonard', which I promise to destroy.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought on a note or due bill, . in the following words: Due Henry Meghan, one hundred and seventy dollars, value received. • Albany, October 29, 1810. John Mills.” ' At the trial, the defendant gave in evidence a receipt, as fob-lows : c< Received, New-Yorlc, November’ 28,1810, of John Mills, one hundred and seventy dollars, being the amount of a due bill, in the hands of Wrn. Leonard', which I promise to destroy. Henry Meghan■ . The plaintiff, in order to show an assignment of the due bill to Leonard, and notice thereof to the defendant, proved the…
1Per curiam
Here was not evidence sufficient to charge the defendant with notice of the assignment of the note to Leonard, at the time that he paid the amount of it to the plaintiff. It was not a negotiable note, and there was no other evidence of the assign*65ment of it, than the endorsement of the plaintiff’s name in blank. This would be sufficient for negotiable paper, but as for specialties and other paper, not negotiable, it is not conclusive of itself, though it may be presumptive evidence, that the property in the paper has been passed. But it does not appear that Leonard had even shown this…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Jackson ex dem. Saunders v. CadwellNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- Jones v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- Bracken v. PrestonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1845
- Heermans v. EllsworthNew York Supreme Court · 1875
- Rowe v. LangleySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1870