Parker v. Jackson
New York Supreme Court
This was an action brought on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy : “$2300. One year, after date, we jointly and severally promise to pay Chauncey Parker or bearer, at our office, twenty-three hundred dollars, and interest, for value received. Cazenovia, January 23d. 1842. It. Jackson & Co. E. S. Jackson. Wm. Burton, surety. Benja. T. Clark, security.”
Read the full summary
This was an action brought on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy : “$2300. One year, after date, we jointly and severally promise to pay Chauncey Parker or bearer, at our office, twenty-three hundred dollars, and interest, for value received. Cazenovia, January 23d. 1842. It. Jackson & Co. E. S. Jackson. Wm. Burton, surety. Benja. T. Clark, security.” Rensselaer Jackson and Elijah G. Atwood, who constituted the firm of R. Jackson &. Co., William Burton, Benjamin T. Clark; and Rensselaer Jackson, E. Steele Jackson, and Simon C. Hitchcock, administrators of Eliphalet S.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Gridley, J.
I. It is objected that Rensselaer Jackson and Atwood, being joint makers of the note, and forming but one person or party, the plaintiff must recover against both; and cannot recover against one of them alone, under the pleadings and proofs. To this objection, which forms the substance of the three first points of the defendants, there are several answers. (1.) We know by the answer of Atwood that the ground of his discharge by the jury was, that the firm name was improperly used by the defendant R. Jackson; that, though a member of the firm, he was not in law a party…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lawrence v. Trustees of Leake & Watts Orphan HouseNew York Supreme Court · 1845
- Grant v. ShurterNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Harrington v. HighamNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- Lane v. DotyNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Brown v. DelafieldCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
3Cited by26 opinions
- Decker v. TrillingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1869
- Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Data Transmission Co., Intervenors. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Berry v. St. Louis & S. F. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Arkansas · 1902
- Burgoyne v. Ohio Life Insurance & Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1855
- Haines v. . HollisterNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.