Dintruff v. Crittenden
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario county court, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. cited Richardson v. Mead, 27 Barb. 178; 2 Story’s Eq. Jur., § 1047; Willard’s Eq.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario county court, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. cited Richardson v. Mead, 27 Barb. 178; 2 Story’s Eq. Jur., § 1047; Willard’s Eq. Jur. 462; Heath v. Hall, 4 Taunt. 326; Tibbets v. George, 5 Ad. & Ell. 293; Briggs v. Dow, 19 Johns. 95; Saxton v. Fleet, 2 Hilt. 477; Hooker v. Eagle Bank, 30 N. Y. 83; Rupp v. Blanchard, 34 Barb. 627; Dickinson v. Phillips, 1 id. 454; Rose v. Baker, 13 id. 230; Battle v. Coit, 26 N. Y. 404, 407. cited Bottle v. Coit, 26 N. Y. 404; Bedell v. Carll, 33 id. 581; Rupp v.…
1Opinion of the CourtE. D. Smith, J.
The case of Battle v. Coit, 26 N. Y. 404, holds that the transfer of a promissory note does not transfer the debt or consideration for which such note was given. In this case, as in that, the note of one partner here, upon the facts assumed and offered to be proved at the trial in this case, was given for the debt of the firm. Such note was doubtless received and operated as conditional payment, and until it was dishonored and during the time it had to run, was to be treated as payment between the parties. But the other partner remained liable in equity as surety for such payment as one of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bolen v. . CrosbyNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Battle v. . CoitNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- Rupp v. BlanchardNew York Supreme Court · 1861