Conderman v. Trenchard
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL, by the defendants, from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The action was brought to recover the amount of a promissory note for $150.70, given to one G-eorge W. Sherwood, by the defendants, which note was not negotiable, but was transferred to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration, before maturity.
Read the full summary
APPEAL, by the defendants, from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The action was brought to recover the amount of a promissory note for $150.70, given to one G-eorge W. Sherwood, by the defendants, which note was not negotiable, but was transferred to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration, before maturity. The facts in relation to this note, as set forth in the defendants’ answer and established on the trial, were as follows: On the 13th of January, 1869, James B. Hicks, one of the defendants, was charged, on the oath of Q-. W. Sherwood, the payee of such note, with…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Mullin, P. J.
This action was brought to recover of the defendants the amount due on a note made by them dated January 27, 1869, payable to George W. Sherwood, for $150.70, sixty days from date. The. note was transferred to the plaintiff by the payee, for a valuable consideration.
The defense set up in the answer, and in support of which, evidence was given, at the trial, was that it was given to compound a felony committed by Hicks, one of the defendants. It appears by the evidence, that Hicks had obtained board, and the use of horses and carriages, from Sherwood, named as payee…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. PeaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
- Daimouth v. BennettNew York Supreme Court · 1853
3Cited by3 opinions
- Buffalo Press Club v. GreenNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Buffalo Press Club v. GreeneSuperior Court of Buffalo · 1893
- Smillie v. TitusNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1880