Hansee v. De Witt
New York Supreme Court
THIS action was brought to recover the amount of a JL promissory note, executed and delivered by the defendant to the plain tiff The complaint alleged that the defendant was a married woman, the wife of Eichard C. De Witt, and was, on the 12th day of November, 1867, the owner of a farm of land, and was carrying on business on her sole and separate account, -in the town of Neversink, and as a part o.f her said business she executed and delivered to the plaintiff, on the said…
Read the full summary
THIS action was brought to recover the amount of a JL promissory note, executed and delivered by the defendant to the plain tiff The complaint alleged that the defendant was a married woman, the wife of Eichard C. De Witt, and was, on the 12th day of November, 1867, the owner of a farm of land, and was carrying on business on her sole and separate account, -in the town of Neversink, and as a part o.f her said business she executed and delivered to the plaintiff, on the said 12th day of November, 1867, her promissory note in writing, of which the -following is a copy : “Ellenville, Nov. 12 th,…
1Opinion of the CourtP. Potter, J.
The learned judge at the circuit ruled as a matter of law that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and directed the jury to find a verdict for the amount of the note in question. In this ruling, and direction, with great deference, I think the learned judge erred. The note itself bears no evidence that the defendant charged, or intended to charge, her separate estate. And I think there was an entire absence of evidence, on the trial, that, her separate estate was benefited by the consideration of this note; or, if there was evidence upon this point, then it became a question of fact for…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Houghton v. MilburnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Bogert v. GulickNew York Supreme Court · 1873
- Bogert v. GulickNew York Supreme Court · 1867
- Nash v. MitchellNew York Court of Appeals · 1877