Nickerson v. Howard
New York Supreme Court
ASSUMPSIT on two promissory notes: one dated the 10th of December, 1818, for 90 dollars, made by the defendant, payable to the plaintiff; the other, for 61 dollars 79 cents, payable to William Nelson, or bearer, on demand, with interest. The cause was tried at ‘.he Putnam Circuit, in September, 1820, before Mr. Justice Woodworth.
Read the full summary
ASSUMPSIT on two promissory notes: one dated the 10th of December, 1818, for 90 dollars, made by the defendant, payable to the plaintiff; the other, for 61 dollars 79 cents, payable to William Nelson, or bearer, on demand, with interest. The cause was tried at ‘.he Putnam Circuit, in September, 1820, before Mr. Justice Woodworth. The defendant offered to prove, that the note first mentioned, was given in consideration of the sale and assignment of the services of an indented apprentice. The evidence was objected to, but admitted by the judge. An indenture, dated the 23d of June, 181S,…
1Opinion of the CourtPlatt, J.
Whether such an indenture of apprenticeship is strictly assignable, is a question which, I think, does not necessarily arise in *114this case.- The defendant, Ward B. Howard, gave the note in question to the plaintiff^ as the price of an assignment of &tt apprentice by the plaintiff to one Éveritt Howard. The' consideration which thé déferidant received for giving this' note, must be presumed to have been paid to him by Everiti Howard, for whose benefit it was understood to have been' given. Whether the assignment was valid or not, it mudt he presumed, that the note was made at-the request of…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Dickinson v. Calahan's AdministratorsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852
- Campbell v. CooperSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1856
- Horn v. FullerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1834
- Williams v. FinchNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Allison, Administrators v. . NorwoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1853
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.