Commissioners of Highways v. Peck
New York Supreme Court
Error to the Cortland C. P. The action was brought by “ The Commissioners of Highways of the town of Cortiandville,” without mentioning their names, on a promissory note in these words; “1 promise to pay the commissioners of highways of the town of Cortiandville one hundred dollars and sixty-six cents, with use, one year from date, for value received. February 16th, 1841. The consideration is for borrowed money. (Signed) Nathan Peck.”
Read the full summary
Error to the Cortland C. P. The action was brought by “ The Commissioners of Highways of the town of Cortiandville,” without mentioning their names, on a promissory note in these words; “1 promise to pay the commissioners of highways of the town of Cortiandville one hundred dollars and sixty-six cents, with use, one year from date, for value received. February 16th, 1841. The consideration is for borrowed money. (Signed) Nathan Peck.” The declaration contained the money counts only, with a copy of the note annexed. On the trial, after the execution of the note had been proved, the defendant’s…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Nelson, Ch. J.
We have already decided that the plaintiffs cannot maintain a suit in their official name or title; but must use their individual names, annexing their official title. (Supervisor of Galway v. Stimson, 4 Hill, 136.) The plaintiffs were therefore properly nonsuited, and the judgment must be affirmed.
But as it may be important to the ultimate disposition of the question between the parties, and save further litigation, we will express our opinion upon the other question raised, to wit, *217whether the note taken by the commissioners for money lent is valid and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brewster v. ColwellNew York Supreme Court · 1834