Hubbly v. Brown & Nichols.
New York Supreme Court
THIS was .an action of assumpsit against the defendants, us endorsers of a promissory note, far 500 dollars, drawn by Rufus Clapp, dated the 9th of May, 1816, payable to the orcier Df the defendants, ninety days after date, at the office 0f the Utica Insurance Company, and ^endorsed by the -de_ v ^ , fendants, atm JB.
Read the full summary
THIS was .an action of assumpsit against the defendants, us endorsers of a promissory note, far 500 dollars, drawn by Rufus Clapp, dated the 9th of May, 1816, payable to the orcier Df the defendants, ninety days after date, at the office 0f the Utica Insurance Company, and ^endorsed by the -de_ v ^ , fendants, atm JB. M. Malcolm, j.he pause wag taied before Mr. J. Platt, at the Oneida circuit, in June, 1818. At the trial, the endorsement of Malcolm, which had previously been -in Manic, was filled up to -the ¡plaintiff, who proved, that when the note became due, demand of payraent Was made of…
1Opinion of the CourtSpencer, J.
The questions in this case are, 1. Whether Rufus Clapp was a competent witness for the defendants, without a. release ? 2. What is the effect of his testimony .if competent ?
The case is silent as to the fact, whether this was an accommodation note, or not; if it was, then,- on the authority of the case of Jones v. Brooke, (4 Term Rep. 466.) the objection to the witness was well founded; because., if the defendants were rendered liable in this, action, they, would have a remedy over against the maker, of the note, not only for the principal and interest, but for the costs; and persons liable…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Farmers' Bank of Amsterdam v. BlairNew York Supreme Court · 1865
- Franklin v. . KiddNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Robinson v. GodfreyMichigan Supreme Court · 1852
- Woodman v. EastmanSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839
- Mills v. BarneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.