Wright v. Holbrook
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict rendered under the direction of the court. The action was brought upon a n.ote made by the defendants’ testator for $8,000. The answer set up that the note was given in payment for lands in Massachusetts, which the plaintiff had contracted to sell to the deceased; and that by the contract of sale the plaintiff might, on three months’ default in payment of the note, sell the land at public auction, and apply the…
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict rendered under the direction of the court. The action was brought upon a n.ote made by the defendants’ testator for $8,000. The answer set up that the note was given in payment for lands in Massachusetts, which the plaintiff had contracted to sell to the deceased; and that by the contract of sale the plaintiff might, on three months’ default in payment of the note, sell the land at public auction, and apply the proceeds to the payment of the note; and claimed, that no cause of action arose against the defendants as executors, until the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court-—Garvin, J.
The plaintiffs, in their complaint, demand judgment against the defendants as the legal representatives of Davis B. Holbrook, deceased, upon a promissory note for the sum of 8,000 dollars, with interest at the rate of six per cent., alleging the note to be-due and unpaid; and that the defendants have in their respective hands, or under their control, moneys and property of the estate of the deceased more than sufficient to pay the amount of said note and interest and aver demand of payment.
The defendants admit, in their answer, the allegations of the complaint, except…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lamport v. BeemanNew York Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re the Estate of StupackNew York Surrogate's Court · 1935
- In re the Estate of VicinusNew York Surrogate's Court · 1936