Johnson v. Weed
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The cause was tried at the Nm-York sittings, in June, 1812, before Mr. Chief Justice Kent. The sale and delivery of the goods were admitted.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The cause was tried at the Nm-York sittings, in June, 1812, before Mr. Chief Justice Kent. The sale and delivery of the goods were admitted. The defendants proved a conversation between Walter Weed, one of the defendants, and the plaintiff, from which, witness testified, he understood the goods were to be paid for in cash; but it was agreed between the parties, that the plaintiff should take the note of John Townsend, payable in 60 days, and that the discount on the amount for that time should be added, The plaintiff agreed to take…
1Per curiam
If it was a part of the original agreement between the parties that the plaintiff should take Townsend’s note, in full satisfaction of the goods sold, so that he, and not the defendants, should run the risk of the note, then, undoubtedly, the plaintiff has no right of action. But the fact, whether such was or was not the agreement, was submitted to the jury, and they have decided in favour of the plaintiff! The books all agree that there must be a clear and special agreement that the vendor shall take the paper absolutely as payment, or it will be no payment, if it afterwards turns out to be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sheehy v. Mandeville & JamessonSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
3Cited by46 opinions
- Muldon v. WhitlockNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Cheltenham Stone & Gravel Co. v. Gates Iron WorksIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
- Milliken v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1829
- Griffith v. GroganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Dunlap's Ex'rs v. ShanklinWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1877
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.