Swasey v. Administrator of Vanderheyden
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought on the following note, given by the intestate, in his lifetime. li February 18th, 1810, for Value received for boarding, I promise to pay Ralph Pay, or bearer, one hundred and fifteen dollars, by the first day of June next.” The defendant pleaded the general issue, and the infancy of the maker of the note.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought on the following note, given by the intestate, in his lifetime. li February 18th, 1810, for Value received for boarding, I promise to pay Ralph Pay, or bearer, one hundred and fifteen dollars, by the first day of June next.” The defendant pleaded the general issue, and the infancy of the maker of the note. The plaintiff replied, that the note was given to the payee, for necessary boarding, lodging and washing, furnished by him to the intestate, in his lifetime. The defendant rejoined, that the note was not given for necessa» ñes, &c. and issue was…
1Per curiam
A negotiable note given by .an infant, even for ^necessaries, is void. This we consider to be the law, and it is the opinion of respectable writers. (Chitty on Bills, 20. 1 Campb. N. P. 553. note.) The reason given is, that if the note be valid, in the first instance, as a negotiable note, the consideration cannot be inquired into when it is in the hands of a bona fide holder, and the infant would thereby be precluded from questioning the consideration. For the same reasons it has been held, (1 Term Rep. 40.) that an infant cannot state an account, as ' that would preclude him from…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Slocum v. Hooker & CatlinNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Taft v. SergeantNew York Supreme Court · 1854
- Bradley v. PrattSupreme Court of Vermont · 1851
- Bouchell v. ClarySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1815
- M'Minn v. RichmondsTennessee Supreme Court · 1834
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.