Butts v. Perkins
New York Supreme Court
ACTION on a promissory note; defense, a general denial and the statute of limitations. The evidence was uncontradicted. The referee found the following facts and conclusions of law: First. That on the 30 th day of January, 1854, the defendant, for value received, executed and delivered to the plaintiff a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “ §300. One day from date, I promise to pay Harvey Butts, or bearer, three hundred dollars, with interest.
Read the full summary
ACTION on a promissory note; defense, a general denial and the statute of limitations. The evidence was uncontradicted. The referee found the following facts and conclusions of law: First. That on the 30 th day of January, 1854, the defendant, for value received, executed and delivered to the plaintiff a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “ §300. One day from date, I promise to pay Harvey Butts, or bearer, three hundred dollars, with interest. Laurens, Jan. 30, 1854. John F. Perkins.” Second. That said plaintiff then became, ever since has been, and still is the holder and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Balcom, J.
Straight was to pay the defendant $26.50 for the tomb-stones upon delivery at his shop. But as the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff upon the note in question, he agreed with the latter that he might receive pay of Straight for the stones, and apply the amount thereof upon the note, and the defendant then delivered the stones to the plaintiff. Straight had previously consented that the parties might make this agreement, and had notice that it was made, and assented to it when the plaintiff took the stones to him, which was within a day or two after such agreement…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lawrence v. . FoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Barker v. BucklinNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Davis v. . SpencerNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Eaves v. HendersonNew York Supreme Court · 1837
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hitchcock v. WiltsieNew York Surrogate's Court · 1887