Executors of Newbold v. Lamb
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On rule to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted. THIS was an action of debt, originally brought in the Common Pleas of Burlington county, and removed by habeas corpus into the Supreme Court, ^ -*■ The plaintiffs declared against the defendant on a sealed kill, and made profert of the same.
Read the full summary
On rule to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted. THIS was an action of debt, originally brought in the Common Pleas of Burlington county, and removed by habeas corpus into the Supreme Court, ^ -*■ The plaintiffs declared against the defendant on a sealed kill, and made profert of the same. The defendant prayed oyer, and after setting out the instrument, pleaded non est factum. . Upon the issue thus joined between the parties, the cause came on for trial at the Burlington circuit, in November 1817. The plaintiffs after proving the death of William Coate, the subscribing witness to…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the court.
Kirkpatrick C. J.
This is an action of debt upon a sealed bill, in these words, to wit. “ For value received, I promise to pay Daniel Newbold or order, on or before the first day of May next, one hundred and seventy-five dollars, with interest. April the first, one thousand eight hundred and six.
Witness present, Jos. Lamb. (scroll.)
William Coate.”
Upon the trial the plaintiff proved the death and handwriting of the said William Coate, the subscribing witness, and then offered his bill in evidence, (a) To this it was objected by the defendant,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- M'Clure v. M'ClureSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1855