Ward v. Sackrider
New York Supreme Court
ON demurrer. The second count of the declaration was on a note or memorandum in writing, by which the defendant acknowledged to have received of Nobles, forty-two dollars, which he promised, on demand, to pay and refund, “ provided the said Nobles should make it appear “ (meaning thereby that the said Nobles should give rea- “ sonable evidence) that he the said Nobles was not able to “ hold a certain lot of land (meaning thereby, if the title “ so conveyed should prove…
Read the full summary
ON demurrer. The second count of the declaration was on a note or memorandum in writing, by which the defendant acknowledged to have received of Nobles, forty-two dollars, which he promised, on demand, to pay and refund, “ provided the said Nobles should make it appear “ (meaning thereby that the said Nobles should give rea- “ sonable evidence) that he the said Nobles was not able to “ hold a certain lot of land (meaning thereby, if the title “ so conveyed should prove defective) before that time “ sold and quit claimed by the said Sackrider to the said “ Nobles, in his life time,” with an…
1Opinion of the Court
Per curiam, delivered by
Spencer J.
There are two counts in the plaintiff’s declaration, one for money had and received, another on a memorandum in writing. The latter count states, that by a note or memorandum in writing, the defendant acknowledged to have received of the intestate, ⅜4⅛, which he promised to refund, if the intestate *265would make it appear that he could not hold a certain lot of land, sold and quit claimed by the defendant to him, averring that the memorandum meant, that if the title so conveyed, should prove defective, then the money was to be refunded; averring also, that the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- National Bank of the Commonwealth v. Mechanics' National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Jackson ex dem. Griswold v. BardNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Bedell v. JanneyIllinois Supreme Court · 1847
- Paul v. FriesSupreme Court of Florida · 1882
- Corning v. RooseveltNew York Supreme Court · 1890
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.