Jefferson County Bank v. Chapman
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson county. The bank sued Chapman on a promissory note, mat^e by him the 26th of April, 1819, by which he promised *-° pay *° Daniel Holloway, or order, the sum of one hun^red dollars, at the Jefferson County Bank, ninety days after date. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, with notice of á set-off.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson county. The bank sued Chapman on a promissory note, mat^e by him the 26th of April, 1819, by which he promised *-° pay *° Daniel Holloway, or order, the sum of one hun^red dollars, at the Jefferson County Bank, ninety days after date. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, with notice of á set-off. At the trial, the defendant, by way of set-off, offered in evidence genuine bills or bank notes issued by the plaintiffs, signed by the President and Cashier of the hank, dated prior to the commencement of the suit. The plain-' tiff’s counsel…
1Opinion of the Court 1
[Spencer, Cb. J.
observed, that the court did not mean, in the case of the Bank of Niagara v. M'Cracken, (18 Johns. Rep. 493.) to decide, that the demand of payment of a bank note, not payable at any particularly place, need not be made at the bank, previous to its being offered as a set-off in in a suit brought by the bank. The decision of *324that point was not necessary in that case ; and he considered the question as now open.]
2Opinion of the Court · WoodworthWoodworth, J.
The evidence offered by the defendant in the Court below, did not make out a valid defence, because, it did not appear that the defendant wras the owner or possessor of…
3Cited by7 opinions
- Taylor v. . Mayor, Etc., City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Walrod v. BallNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Huling v. HuggSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Finch v. IvesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1859
- Kelly v. GarrettIllinois Supreme Court · 1844
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.