Todd v. Crookshanks
New York Supreme Court
ON certiorari. The plaintiff below brought an action of detinue against the defendant for a promissory note, dated the 12th of January, 1801, for 20 dollars. From the evidence produced at the trial, it appeared that the defendant had purchased of the plaintiff and one Mary Crookshanks, as executors, &c. some property, for which he gave to them the note in question.
Read the full summary
ON certiorari. The plaintiff below brought an action of detinue against the defendant for a promissory note, dated the 12th of January, 1801, for 20 dollars. From the evidence produced at the trial, it appeared that the defendant had purchased of the plaintiff and one Mary Crookshanks, as executors, &c. some property, for which he gave to them the note in question. That the defendant afterwards paid the amount of the note to Mary Crook-shanks, and took her receipt in full; but the note being in the hands of Todd, the other payee, was not given up ; and on his refusal to deliver it, the…
1Per curiam
There was no foundation for the action below. After the note was paid, and a receipt in full given, by one of the payees, it was completely discharged, so as to be of no value. The note did not belong to the plaintiff, and it might be useful to Todd, the other payee, who was a co-executor, to show that he had not received the money. An action of trover will lie for a note in the hands of a third person ; but such an action as this was never before brought.
Judgment reversed.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Campbell v. . ButtsNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
- Savery v. HaysSupreme Court of Iowa · 1865
- Rhoades v. SelinU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1827
- Robinson v. BatchelderSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1827
- Dame v. DameSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1861
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.