Bump v. Van Orsdale
New York Supreme Court
This was an action brought to recover the amount of a promissory note given by the defendant, of which the following is a copy : “ §40. For value received, I promise to pay Margaret Horton or bearer, forty dollars, one year from date, with use. Dated South Bainbridge, May 14,1845. (Signed) John Van Orsdale.”
Read the full summary
This was an action brought to recover the amount of a promissory note given by the defendant, of which the following is a copy : “ §40. For value received, I promise to pay Margaret Horton or bearer, forty dollars, one year from date, with use. Dated South Bainbridge, May 14,1845. (Signed) John Van Orsdale.” The action was tried before Robert 0. Reynolds, Esq. the referee, and a report made therein finding due to the plaintiff $58,25, on the 6th day of January, 1852. It appeared on the trial that the payee of the note transferred it to Jerusha Van Orsdale in October, 1845, and that she…
1Opinion of the CourtCrippen, J.
By the code of 1848, § 351, it was provided that no person offered as a witness should be excluded, by reason of his interest in the event of the action. This provision, however, was declared not to apply to a party to the action, nor to any person for whose immediate benefit it was prosecuted or defended. The code was amended in 1849, and the above section divided into two sections. Section 398 re-enacted the first paragraph of § 351 as an independent section ; and § 399 enacted the remainder of § 351 of the code of 1848, and amended the same by adding thereto, “ that the preceding section…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hamilton & Deansville Plank Road Co. v. RiceNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Canfield v. MongerNew York Supreme Court · 1815
- Evarts v. PalmerNew York Supreme Court · 1849
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jagoe v. AlleynNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- Potter v. BushnellNew York Supreme Court · 1854
- Hicks v. WirthNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1855