Lent v. Hodgman
New York Supreme Court
' The complaint in this cause alleged that in the month of January, 1851, the defendant, at Bath, made his two promissory notes, or bills, or instruments in writing, of which the following are copies; “ Bath, January 13th, 1851. Pay Abram Lent for 68-f-f- bushels wheat in store at three cents below first quality wheat. (Signed) L. D. H., for L. D. Hodgman.”
Read the full summary
' The complaint in this cause alleged that in the month of January, 1851, the defendant, at Bath, made his two promissory notes, or bills, or instruments in writing, of which the following are copies; “ Bath, January 13th, 1851. Pay Abram Lent for 68-f-f- bushels wheat in store at three cents below first quality wheat. (Signed) L. D. H., for L. D. Hodgman.” Also the defendant on the 23d day of January, 1851, made another note or instrument in writing, by S. M. Chamberlain his agent, duly authorized by the defendant to execute such instruments for said defendant, of which the following is a…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, T. R. Strong, J.
The instruments in question are not bills of exchange, or promissory notes, as the sums to be paid are not specified. (Story on Bills, § 42. Id. on Prom. Notes, §§ 19,20,21.) But I think they are valid special agreements. The legal effect of the omission of the name of a drawee is, that the drawer is also the drawee. (Story on Bills, §§ 39, 85.) He promises absolutely to pay, instead of conditionally, on the default of another person. As to the sums to be paid, it is sufficient to the validity of the instruments, as agreements, that the sums can be ascertained by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Niles v. CulverNew York Supreme Court · 1850
3Cited by3 opinions
- Willett v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Frye v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1948
- Krakauer v. HardmanNew York Marine Court · 1876