Slingerland v. Bennett
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury. The action was brought by John S. Slingerland against Erasmus Bennett to recover for a fraud of defendant in putting off upon the plaintiff a promissory note of $500 against one Houck, which proved uncollectible. On the trial plaintiff, who was sworn as a witness on his own behalf, was asked these questions, oh the direct examination, with reference to one Moss Slingerland.
Read the full summary
APPEAL by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury. The action was brought by John S. Slingerland against Erasmus Bennett to recover for a fraud of defendant in putting off upon the plaintiff a promissory note of $500 against one Houck, which proved uncollectible. On the trial plaintiff, who was sworn as a witness on his own behalf, was asked these questions, oh the direct examination, with reference to one Moss Slingerland. Question. “ You know he was reputed to have wealth"? ” Question. “He was generally reputed to be a man of property?”…
1Opinion of the CourtBoardman, J.
The defendant, in transferring this note to plaintiff, made representations that the note was perfectly good; *447that Houck owned two farms in Bethlehem and had only $3,000 against him; that he was as good as Moss Slingerland or either of the parties.
Hpon the trial, it appeared beyond controversy that the two farms were mortgaged, at the time of the transfer of the note, for $12,000 and over; that the property was worth about $15,000, and that Houck was indebted otherwise about $3,000. It also appeared that when the note became due about eight months after it was put into judgment, an execution…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Amsden v. ManchesterNew York Supreme Court · 1862