Sleght v. Kane
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, made by the defendant, to the intestate, dated the 17th December, 1777, for 100 pounds, payable on demand.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, made by the defendant, to the intestate, dated the 17th December, 1777, for 100 pounds, payable on demand. The defendant pleaded, 1. Non assumpsit; 2. Non assumpsit infra sex annos ; 3. Payment, with notice of a set-off against the plaintiff, for rent due to the defendant, on the 20th October, 1779, from the intestate, for the use and occupation of a house and farm, belonging to the defendant in Fishkill, from the 17th December, 1777, to the 20th October, 1779. • There was a replication to the second plea, and a rejoinder, to which the…
1Per curiam
Although the note in question was given for the consideration money of the farm, the plaintiff’s retaining possession of the farm, or hiring it, was not made a condition of the purchase. They were not parts of one contract, and dependent on each other, and are, therefore, to be considered as distinct transactions.
* Chases in action may be, and were expressly confiscated by the act now in question. The plaintiff’s title to the rent was, therefore, transferred, by the forfeiture of his real and persoual property, to the people. His right to the estate itself, from which the rent was to accrue,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hastings v. LuskCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1839
- Bogart v. M'DonaldNew York Supreme Court · 1801