Wolcott v. Van Santvoord
New York Supreme Court
>7 THIS was an action of assumpsit against the defendant, as acceptor of an inland bill of exchange, dated Utica, the 2d of fnly, 1818, drawn by Soulden & Smith, directed to the defendant, requesting him, five months after date, to pay to Solomon dfFoIcott, (the intestate,) or his order, at the Bank of Utica, the sum of $‘2,942 and 43 cents, in current money of the city of New-York, for value received, &c., which bill was duly igeeepted by the defendant, on the 3d of July,…
Read the full summary
>7 THIS was an action of assumpsit against the defendant, as acceptor of an inland bill of exchange, dated Utica, the 2d of fnly, 1818, drawn by Soulden & Smith, directed to the defendant, requesting him, five months after date, to pay to Solomon dfFoIcott, (the intestate,) or his order, at the Bank of Utica, the sum of $‘2,942 and 43 cents, in current money of the city of New-York, for value received, &c., which bill was duly igeeepted by the defendant, on the 3d of July, 1818. The declaration contained two counts, on the bill and acceptance, and also the usual money counts. The first count…
1Opinion of the Court
⅛ Spencer, Ch. J.
The demurrer in this case has been interposed to the first count in the declaration, on the ground, *204that the bill is made payable at the bank of Utica, and 'that there is no averment that it was presented there on the clay it became payable. The inquiry, then, is, whether such an averment is necessary to sustain the plaintiff’s right of action; or whether the defendant is not bound to plead, in bar of the damages, that he was ready, at the time and place, when and where the bill became due, to pay it, and that he has ever since been ready, and now brings the money into court…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ruggles v. PattenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- President of the Berkshire Bank v. JonesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Woodbridge v. BrighamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
3Cited by30 opinions
- Hills v. . PlaceNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Parker v. . StroudNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Caldwell v. CassidyNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Bank of Montreal v. IngersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- Fairchild v. . the Ogdensburgh, Clayton and Rome R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1857
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.