Wood v. Bulkley
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note¿ made fey the defendant, and payable to. the plaintiff; The cause was tríed-béfore Mr. Justice Yates, at the Onondaga circuit,’in, ■ . - ° ' I81-6*- ‘ ' <’ . -* ; The declaration contained but one count, which was on á Promissory note, drawn by the -'defendant,. “ -by-the -name and description of Christ.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note¿ made fey the defendant, and payable to. the plaintiff; The cause was tríed-béfore Mr. Justice Yates, at the Onondaga circuit,’in, ■ . - ° ' I81-6*- ‘ ' <’ . -* ; The declaration contained but one count, which was on á Promissory note, drawn by the -'defendant,. “ -by-the -name and description of Christ. But-ktey?1 - The-defendant’s counsel-objected to -the admission of the note,'on- the ground of a-Vari- , aneé between the- Signature of the note, and; the name stated in-the declaration ; but'the judge overruled1 the objection, and'the…
1Per curiam
jThemotion foranew trial must bedenied. There was no material Variance between the note set out in the declaration, and the one produced in evidence. The signature of the defendant, by the abbreviation of Christ, for- Christopher, was proved to be the usual and ordinary way in which he signed hisnaine. According to the case, there is, in point of fact, no variance between the nisi prius record, and the copy of the deelation, as served off th'e defendant, even if such proof could have been admissible,: But this was 'not matter that could be inquired into Upon the trial The' judge at the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Danes v. PearsonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
- Chicago & Alton Railroad v. RobbinsIllinois Supreme Court · 1895
- Lasselle v. HewsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1839
- Campanelli v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadSuperior Court of Buffalo · 1891
- Den ex dem. Vandersdalen v. HullSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1827
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.