Campbell v. Hoyt
New York Supreme Court
THIS was a motion for a new trial, on a bill of exceptions. taken at the circuit. The judge who tried the cause directed the exceptions to be heard in the first instance at a general term. The action was trespass, for the wrongful taking of a quantity of merchandise, being part of a stock of goods in a store in the city of Rochester.
Read the full summary
THIS was a motion for a new trial, on a bill of exceptions. taken at the circuit. The judge who tried the cause directed the exceptions to be heard in the first instance at a general term. The action was trespass, for the wrongful taking of a quantity of merchandise, being part of a stock of goods in a store in the city of Rochester. The plaintiffs claimed the goods under and by virtue of an assignment executed by Timothy Chapman, the former owner, to them in trust for the benefit of creditors. The defendants Hoyt, Tillinghast, Knight and Greene, put in an answer jointly, and the defendants…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, T. R. Strong, J.
The bond of indemnity was important evidence in the case, to establish the liability of the defendants who executed it. There was indorsed upon it a certificate, in due form, purporting to be by a commissioner of deeds in the city of New York, of the acknowledgment of the bond by the obligors; and it was offered in evidence under section 9 of chapter 271 of the laws of 1833, (Laws of that year, p. 396,) which is in the following words : “ Every written instrument, except promissory notes and bills of exchange, and except the last wills of deceased persons, may be…
2Cited by1 opinion
- People v. HurlbuttNew York Supreme Court · 1865