Van Eps v. Dillaye
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit upon two promissory notes dated Oct. 3,1842, signed by Dillaye, Hayden & Co. and payable to the order of the plaintiff, six months after date; one of which was for $108,35, and the other for $108,36. The defendant Dillaye pleaded the general issue, and payment, and gave notice of set-off. The other defendants did not appear. The cause was tried at the Madison circuit in Feb. 1849, before Justice Gridley.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit upon two promissory notes dated Oct. 3,1842, signed by Dillaye, Hayden & Co. and payable to the order of the plaintiff, six months after date; one of which was for $108,35, and the other for $108,36. The defendant Dillaye pleaded the general issue, and payment, and gave notice of set-off. The other defendants did not appear. The cause was tried at the Madison circuit in Feb. 1849, before Justice Gridley. The plaintiff read in evidence the deposition of John Van Bps, taken before a referee appointed for that purpose. The witness testified that in 1841 and 1842…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Allen, J.
The defendants, Hayden and Williams, were either not served with process, and in that case are not bound, or in any way affected, by the verdict and judgment, unless they claim to own property jointly with Dillaye, or else, having been served with process, they have failed to appear, and suffered default, and thereby admitted the right of the plaintiff to recover. And in either case they can not object to the sufficiency of the evidence of their liability; and it was sufficient for the plaintiff to show that Dillaye, who alone appears and defends, was a member of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Waydell v. LuerCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1846
- Ketcham v. ClarkNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- Arnold v. CampNew York Supreme Court · 1815
- Whitney & Bancroft v. Sterling & HunterNew York Supreme Court · 1817
- Halliday v. McDougallCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1839
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Austin v. . HollandNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Griffith v. GroganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Hawks v. HinchcliffNew York Supreme Court · 1854
- Bates v. RosekransNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Fowler v. ClearwaterNew York Supreme Court · 1861
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.