President, Directors, & Co. of the Mechanics' Bank v. Minthorne
New York Supreme Court
THE plaintiffs brought an action of assumpsit against the defendant, as endorser of a promissory note, made by j) Tompkins, dated the 31st of January, 1818, for se- ■ ven thousand dollars, payable sixty days after date.
Read the full summary
THE plaintiffs brought an action of assumpsit against the defendant, as endorser of a promissory note, made by j) Tompkins, dated the 31st of January, 1818, for se- ■ ven thousand dollars, payable sixty days after date. An interlocutory judgment, on the default of the defendant for wanl a P^a, having been'entered, the damages were, as» sessed by the clerk of the Court, on the llth of Blau last; J . ° and on the fifteenth of May final judgment was signed, filed, a»d docketted, for the 8,633 dollars and 19 cents damages and costs. On the 28th of May, the defendant paid to the plaintiffs’…
1Per curiam
We have no doubt of our power to set aside the satisfaction entered, as well where there is a clear mistake, as in a case oí fraud. (Wardell v. Eden, 2 Johns. Cases, 121.) Here is a clear and acknowledged mistake of the clerk of this Court. We interfere, in such a case, to do that equity which the party would be entitled to, on application to the Court of Chancery. We, therefore, grant the alternative of the rule moved for; but with thoproviso, that if the defendant shall pay to ‘ the plaintiffs the sum of 525 dollars, in thirty days after service of a copy of the rule, then satisfaction of…
2Cited by18 opinions
- DeKalb County v. HixonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Berthold v. FoxSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1874
- Lewis v. RossSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1854
- Todd v. BetttngenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Dowling v. StephanNew York Supreme Court · 1954
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.