Tillotson v. Preston
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration, which was of November term, 1806, contained five counts for goods sold and delivered, 5kc. money had and received to the plaintiff’s use, ike.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration, which was of November term, 1806, contained five counts for goods sold and delivered, 5kc. money had and received to the plaintiff’s use, ike. There was an imparlance to the first day of February term last, and the defendant pleaded, 1. Non-assumpsit; 2. That after the said supposed promises and undertakings, &c. to wit, on the 7th day of January, 1807, at, &c. he paid to the plaintiff the several sums of money mentioned in his declaration, &c. To this plea of payment the plaintiff demurred specially, for the following causes : 1. That the…
1Per curiam
The, demurrer is not well taken. If the plaintiff has accepted the principal, he cannot afterwards bring an action for the interest. It is not a plea puis darrein continuance, but a regular plea of payment after an imparlance.
The plaintiff may withdraw the demurrer and reply, on payment of costs.
2Cited by25 opinions
- Stewart v. BarnesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Cutter v. . the Mayor, Etc., of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Dean v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
- Southern Central Railroad v. Town of MoraviaNew York Supreme Court · 1871
- Pacific Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.