Noel v. Murray
The Superior Court of New York City
The complaint demanded judgment for the sum of $988 67, as a balance due to the plaintiffs, upon a sale by them to the defendant of a quantity of looking-glass plates.
Read the full summary
The complaint demanded judgment for the sum of $988 67, as a balance due to the plaintiffs, upon a sale by them to the defendant of a quantity of looking-glass plates. The answer admitted the sale, but set up as a defence, that the whole debt thereby contracted, amounting to $1,029, was satisfied at the time by a cash payment of $38 33, and a delivery ‘ " to the plaintiffs of a promissory note of J. Howland & Son payable in six months from the 23d of September, 1850, and that the plaintiffs, by a receipt in writing then given, acknowledged that the said money and note were received by them as…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court. Oakley, Ch. J.
It is not necessary to deny that in this state the law is settled, that the acceptance by a creditor of the bill or note of a third person, even when not endorsed by the debtor, never operates as. a satisfaction of a precedent debt, unless it is expressly shown that such, at the time, was the understanding and agreement of the parties; and *389it may also be admitted that this rule prevails, even when a receipt is given by the creditor, acknowledging the bill or note to have been received by him as a payment in full. But these admissions are not at all inconsistent…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Frank v. BaselaarCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1947
- Sebastian May Co. v. CoddCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1893
- Earle v. CraneThe Superior Court of New York City · 1858
- Jose v. BakerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1854