Hendricks v. Judah
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, . given by the defendants in England, to one M. G. Waage, resident there, for £ 223 sterling, dated 28th September, , 1803, payable to his order, on demand. The note was in-" dorsed to one Thomas Holmes, and by him to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, . given by the defendants in England, to one M. G. Waage, resident there, for £ 223 sterling, dated 28th September, , 1803, payable to his order, on demand. The note was in-" dorsed to one Thomas Holmes, and by him to the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and gave notice, under the statute, that the note, at the commencement of the suit, was the property of Waasfé, who was largely in*' r r J it -, . debted to the defendants, which debt they intended to set-off, and further, that the note was not indorsed by Waage, until…
1Per curiam
By the testimony of the defendants, it appears that the note had been bonajide transferred to a third person, to whom it belonged, and the suit is brought by the trustee of such third person. The note was payable on demand, and the suit brought within a year, so that it must have been transferred within that time. It may have been indorsed soon after its date, and as the transaction was in England, we may intend that to be the case, as no evidence to the contrary has been offered. The judge, therefore, was right in rejecting the proof offered by the defendants, as to a set-off against the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Sice v. CunninghamNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Goodwin v. DavenportSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1860
- Ross v. KnightSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1827
- Weeks v. PryorNew York Supreme Court · 1858
- Woods v. CarlisleSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1832
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.