Read v. Hurd
New York Supreme Court
Error from the Duchess common pleas. Hurd commenced a suit against Read in June, 1829, on a promissory note for $137,82, dated 2d February, 1819, payable on demand. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit and actio non accrevit infra, &c.; the plaintiff replied, that the cause of action accrued within 6 years before the exhibition of the bill, &c.
Read the full summary
Error from the Duchess common pleas. Hurd commenced a suit against Read in June, 1829, on a promissory note for $137,82, dated 2d February, 1819, payable on demand. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit and actio non accrevit infra, &c.; the plaintiff replied, that the cause of action accrued within 6 years before the exhibition of the bill, &c. On the trial the making of the note was proved; on it appeared an endorsement of $32,50, under date of 1st October, 1824. The plaintiff offered to prove that the endorsement was made by a witness, at his request, on the day of its date, as evidence of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Sutherland, J.
The effect of the payment by Skiff, of course, depends upon his authority to make it for the defendant; a payment made by a stranger for a defendant, without any authority or instruction from him, cannot prejudice his rights. If the evidence had simply been that the endorsement was made on the day it bears date, when the effect of it was clearly against the plaintiff’s interest, it would have been competent and prima facie evidence of a payment on that day by the defendant. Roseboon v. Billington, 17 Johns. R. 184. 2 Campb. 321. But here the plaintiff’s own proof…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Welsh v. . CochranNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Smith v. . RyanNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- First Nat. Bank of Utica v. . BallouNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- McMorris v. SimpsonNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Eilke v. RiceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.