Shephard v. Little
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR to the court of common pleas of the county of Oneida. This was an action of assumpsit for money had and received, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, vvhich was tried in December, 1815, in the court below.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR to the court of common pleas of the county of Oneida. This was an action of assumpsit for money had and received, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, vvhich was tried in December, 1815, in the court below. At the trial, the plaintiff offered to prove, that, being in session of a certain piece of land under a lease for years, and his interest in the same being worth about five hundred dollars, and being indebted to one Babcock in the sum of about one dred and eighty dollars, the defendant agreed to advance to the plaintiff the money to pay Babcock; and…
1Opinion of the CourtSpencer, J.
The court below proceeded, probably, on the principle, that the assignment contained the written contract of the parties, and that it would be contradicting and varying it, to admit the proof offered. I think they erred, in the application of a well-established rule of law to the case before them.
If a consideration be expressed in a deed of bargain and sale, of the slightest pecuniary nature, it is sufficient; and it may be doubted whether, in an assignment of a leasehold interest under seal, any consideration whatever is necessary.(a) It certainly is not in a deed of feoffment, accompanied…
2Cited by46 opinions
- Wilkinson v. ScottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
- Witbeck v. . WaineNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Cagger v. . LansingNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Peck v. . MallamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Jackson, ex dem. Rounds v. M'ChesneyNew York Supreme Court · 1827
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.