Waring v. Yates
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The bill against the de_ _ _ _ - . ni i • i • fendanty who was an attorney of this court, was hied m vacation, as of the first Monday of August term, 1832, and stated the promise or assumption of the defendant, to be on the 1st September, 1812. * The defendant pleaded, that on the second day of September, 1812, he delivered to the plaintiff a bank check, which had been paid, and which the plaintiff accepted and received in full satisfaction,…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The bill against the de_ _ _ _ - . ni i • i • fendanty who was an attorney of this court, was hied m vacation, as of the first Monday of August term, 1832, and stated the promise or assumption of the defendant, to be on the 1st September, 1812. * The defendant pleaded, that on the second day of September, 1812, he delivered to the plaintiff a bank check, which had been paid, and which the plaintiff accepted and received in full satisfaction, &c. The plaintiff replied that the defendant did not deliver to the plaintiff the check, &c. in full satisfaction and…
1Per curiam
The second objection is fatal. The declaration is bad on general demurrer.* It was so decided in Cheetham v. Lewis. (3 Johns. Rep. 42.) There should have been a special memorandum in this case, entitling the declaration of the day on which it was filed, and subsequent to the time when the cause of action accrued. The defendant is entitled to judgment, but he has leave to withdraw the demurrer, and the plaintiff may amend on payment of costs.
Judgment for the defendant
1 Tida's Pr. 767. Chitty's Pl. 259. 263, 264, 265.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Tebbetts & Pearce v. DowdNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. v. McWhirterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1896
- Maynard v. TalcottNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Hogan v. CuylerNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Updike v. BroeckSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1866
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.