Hanna v. Mills
New York Supreme Court
Error from thetsuperior court of the city of New. York". This was an action of assumpsit by Mills and Hooker against Hanna.
Read the full summary
Error from thetsuperior court of the city of New. York". This was an action of assumpsit by Mills and Hooker against Hanna. The plaintiffs in the first count of the declaration set forth a special agreement, made 9th March, 1836, by which the defendant in consideration that the plaintiffs would sell and deliver to him certain goods of the value of $1477 93, undertook and promised to pay the plaintiffs for the goods by a promissory note to be made by the defendant for the said sum of money, bearing date the 9th day of March, 1836, payable six months after date to the order of, and endorsed by…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Bronson, J.
Several objections are taken to this judgment.
1. It is said that the jury did not pass upon the issue on the plea of payment. The verdict is only informal—not *92defective in substance. Payment might have been given in evidence under the general issue, as well as under the special plea; and if it was proved, the jury could not have found for the plaintiffs on non-assumpsit. The jury have therefore in effect, though not in form, passed upon both issues. Law v. Merrills, 6 Wendell, 268. This is not like the case of Boynton v. Page, 13 Wendell, 425, on which the plaintiff in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Law v. MerrillsCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1830
- Boynton v. PageNew York Supreme Court · 1835
3Cited by25 opinions
- Ronge v. DawsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1859
- Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. PendarCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
- O'Connor v. DingleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Bayne v. MorrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1863
- Barron v. MullinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.