Emley v. Perrine
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On rule to show cause, &c. This action is in contract, and the declaration contains only the common counts in' assumpsit. The bill of particulars declares that the declaration is founded upon the following instrument, viz.: “March 28th, 1888. “Messrs. Nightengale Bros.: “ I. O. U. “ ($250) two hundred and fifty dollars for value received. “J. H. Perrine,” assigned by delivery to plaintiff. One of the pleas was the general issue.
Read the full summary
On rule to show cause, &c. This action is in contract, and the declaration contains only the common counts in' assumpsit. The bill of particulars declares that the declaration is founded upon the following instrument, viz.: “March 28th, 1888. “Messrs. Nightengale Bros.: “ I. O. U. “ ($250) two hundred and fifty dollars for value received. “J. H. Perrine,” assigned by delivery to plaintiff. One of the pleas was the general issue. The verdict being for the plaintiff, the defendant obtained this rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mague, J.
In the course of the trial defendant offered -in evidence an assignment for the benefit of creditors, dated December 8th, 1890, and made by the firm of Nightengale Brothers, and by John and Joseph Nightengale, who composed that firm, to John S. Barkalow. The offer was rejected on the ground that a defence of that character should have been interposed by plea or notice.
The rejection of the evidence offered was erroneous.
By section 2 of our “Act respecting assignments for the benefit of creditors” (Gen. 8tat.,p. 78), such an instrument operates…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Chase Nat. Bank of New York v. SaylesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1926
- In Re RosenCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1946
- In re RosenDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1946
- Axel v. KraemerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1908