Melick v. . Knox
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first district, affirming a judgment, in an action of foreclosure, that the defendant Knox is not liable for any interest that accrued after the time when the principal of the bond became payable.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first district, affirming a judgment, in an action of foreclosure, that the defendant Knox is not liable for any interest that accrued after the time when the principal of the bond became payable. George W. Gray, one of the defendants, on the 31st day of January, 1857, executed his bond to Charles Knox, conditioned for the payment to Knox, or his assigns, of the sum of §4,000, on the 31st day of January, I860, interest payable semi-annually ; and to.secure the payment of the same, Gray and his wife executed and delivered to…
1Opinion of the Court
Hunt, C.
The case of Hamilton v. Van Rensselaer (43 N. Y. R., 244), is decisive of the present case. There Yan Bensselaer, as security for Waddington, guaranteed the payment of the interest of the bond given by Waddington to Hamilton. The bond was dated in July, 1854, and payable in January, 1861, with semi-annual interest. The guaranty was in the words following: “ For value received, I guarantee the punctual payment of the interest on the within bond, and will pay the interest on demand, iq default of its payment by Mr. Waddington.” The question upon this guaranty came before the Court of…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Equitable Trust Co. v. Western Pac. Ry. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1917
- United States Mortgage Co. v. HendersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- First National Bank v. JonesNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- French v. BatesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Rector v. McCarthySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.