Hallett v. Holmes
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note made by Joseph E. Haff, the 26th September, 1818, payable the defendant, ninety days after date, and endorsed by him to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note made by Joseph E. Haff, the 26th September, 1818, payable the defendant, ninety days after date, and endorsed by him to the plaintiff. The declaration contained a counton the promissory notes, and counts for money paid, laid out, &c. money lent, and money had and received, &c. ' The defendant pleaded, 1. Non assumpsit. 2. That the plaintiff ought not to have and maintain his action, &c. because, &c. that after an action was brought in this Court against Haff, the maker, and before this suit was commenced, theplain-*iff> without the consent…
1Opinion of the Court
SpeuceR, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. The plaintiff takes an exception to the plea, that it purports to be an answer to the whole declaration, and is only an answer *30to part. If the objection is true, in point of fact, the law is tvell settled, that the plea is bad. (1 Saund. 28. note 3. and the cases there cited. 1 Chilly Pl. 510.) It is an established rule, upon the argument of a demurrer, to give judgment against the party whose pleading is first defective in substance. The plea begins with an answer to the whole declaration, but it confines the agreement set up to the giving a…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Sewall v. FitchNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Suydam v. VanceU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1840
- Vermont v. Society for the Propagation of the GospelU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont · 1827
- Naglee v. IngersollSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847
- Henry Prouse Cooper & Co. v. WandelNew York Supreme Court · 1887
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.