Cheesebrough v. Millard
New York Court of Chancery
THE following are the material facts on which the controversy between the parties in the above causes arose, and will be sufficient to explain the grounds on which the decis'on court turned, without a minute detail of the voluminous pleadings and proofs.
Read the full summary
THE following are the material facts on which the controversy between the parties in the above causes arose, and will be sufficient to explain the grounds on which the decis'on court turned, without a minute detail of the voluminous pleadings and proofs. On the 22d of December, 1803, Thomas Smith, of Mii- ' ton, county of Saratoga, executed a bond to Ambrose Millard, (defendant,) and Benajah Millard, for the payment of 3,500 dollars, in two instalments, with interest; and to secure the payments, he, at the same time, executed a mortgage on certain mill-property, in Ballston. Afterwards, on…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The controversy resolves itself into these two questions:
1st. Whether Chéesebrough and others are bound to contribute towards the payment of the mortgage ?
2dly'. If they are, then what is to be the rule. of contribution ?
1. The weight of testimony is decisive in proof of the agreement and understanding of all the parties to the bond and mortgages, that the payment of the 1,902 dollars and 78 cents, for which the receipt was given by Bacon, and the certificate of discharge by Marvin, was to be applied to the discharge of the second, and not of the first, instalment. This appears…
2Cited by59 opinions
- Hayes v. WardNew York Court of Chancery · 1819
- Corporation for the Relief of Poor Distressed Presbyterian v. WallaceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1831
- Gans v. . ThiemeNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Hatco Corporation v. W.R. Grace & Co.--Conn., a Corporation of the State of Connecticut, and Third-Party v. Allstate Insurance Company (As Successor to Northbrook Excess and Surplus Company) American Employers' Insurance Company Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London and the London Market Companies Commercial Union Insurance Company Continental Casualty Company Pacific Employers Insurance Company Unigard Security Insurance Company, Third-Party and Commercial Union Insurance Company, Third-Party and Fourth-Party v. Maryland Casualty Company, Fourth-Party and Fifth-Party v. American Centennial Insurance Company Evanston Insurance Company First State Insurance Company Gibraltar Casualty Company Hartford Casualty Insurance Company Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London and the London Market Companies Midland Insurance Company Reliance Insurance Company Republic Insurance Company Royal Indemnity Company Transport Indemnity, A/K/A Mission American Insurance Company Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Fifth-Party and W.R. Grace & Co.--Conn.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
- Knighton v. CurrySupreme Court of Alabama · 1878
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.