Williams v. Walbridge
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the Onondaga circuit in September, 1827, before the Hon. Enos T. Throop) then one of the circuit judges. The defendants were sued as the endorsers of a promissory note for $450, drawn by the firm of John Rogers & Co. payable to the defendants. The firm of John Rogers & Co* consisted of two persons, viz. John Rogers and Thomas J. Field.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the Onondaga circuit in September, 1827, before the Hon. Enos T. Throop) then one of the circuit judges. The defendants were sued as the endorsers of a promissory note for $450, drawn by the firm of John Rogers & Co. payable to the defendants. The firm of John Rogers & Co* consisted of two persons, viz. John Rogers and Thomas J. Field. Rogers was indebted individually to the plaintiffs in the sum of $452, he drew the note in question, signed the name of his firm to it, procured the endorsement of the defendants and delivered the note to the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Marcy, J.
The objection to Rogers as a witness cannot be sustained on the ground of interest. Even without the discharge, he would not, for that cause, have been an incompetent witness. This point was decided in the case of Ridley v. Taylor (13 East, 175.) But there is another objection raised against him, independent of his interest in the event of the suit. The rule of the civil law, that nemo attegans suan turpitudinem est audiendus, is supposed by the plaintiffs to apply to a person impeaching the validity of negotiable paper, to which he has given currency by being a party to…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Mechanics' Bank v. BarnesMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Lanier v. McCabeSupreme Court of Florida · 1848
- Hendrie v. BerkowitzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Orr v. LaceyMichigan Supreme Court · 1846
- Winkler v. ScudderSupreme Court of Georgia · 1846
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.