Skilding & Haight v. Warren
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiffs, as endorsees of a promissory note, dated May 23d, 1815, for 500 dollars, payable in six months, to Moses Warren, the defendant, made by Gilchrist and Warren, and endorsed by the de- * %> * v fendant, Moses Warren, and by Benjamin Smith.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiffs, as endorsees of a promissory note, dated May 23d, 1815, for 500 dollars, payable in six months, to Moses Warren, the defendant, made by Gilchrist and Warren, and endorsed by the de- * %> * v fendant, Moses Warren, and by Benjamin Smith. At the trial, before Mr. J. Spencer, at the Rensselaer circuit, in December, 1817, the counsel for the defendant admitted all the facts requisite, in the first instance, to supP01^ *he plaintiff’s action, and then offered Jonathan Warren, one of the makers of the note, as a witness in relation to 7 the…
1Opinion of the CourtSpencer, J.
It cannot be useful or necessary to review all the cases, upon the question whether a party whose name is on a negotiable *274paper, can be admitted as a witness to impeach it¿ by testifyt° facts arising subsequent to the execution of the note.
We have decided, that from principles of public policy, a man whose name is on such paper, cannot be admitted to show it void for usury, or for any other cause, at the time of its execution; but that as to facts subsequently arising, he may be admitted to testify, if he stands disinterested. I cannot perceive any essential difference between this case and…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Bank v. Ohio Valley Furniture Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1905
- State ex rel. Goodin v. McDonoughMissouri Court of Appeals · 1880
- Griffith v. RefordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1829
- Hill v. ElySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819
- Daggett v. WhitingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1868
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.