Sackett v. Palmer
New York Supreme Court
THIS action was brought upon an instrument in the following words : “ $550. Ninety days after the dissolution of the copartnership between Nelson Chapin, of the party of the first part, in said copartnership, and J. F. Palmer, of the party of the second part in said copartnership, and the settling of the books of the said firm, I, in behalf of the party of the second part, promise to pay to the said Nelson Chapin, of the party of the first part, five hundred and fifty…
Read the full summary
THIS action was brought upon an instrument in the following words : “ $550. Ninety days after the dissolution of the copartnership between Nelson Chapin, of the party of the first part, in said copartnership, and J. F. Palmer, of the party of the second part in said copartnership, and the settling of the books of the said firm, I, in behalf of the party of the second part, promise to pay to the said Nelson Chapin, of the party of the first part, five hundred and fifty dollars; the interest to be paid annually by the aforesaid J. F. Palmer, of the party of the second part, in the aforesaid…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Johnson, J.
The instrument on which the' action is brought is not a promissory note. It is payable ninety days after the happening of two events, one of which may never happen. The general rule is, that an instrument payable only in money, is not a promissory note, unless it is payable at all events, not depending on any contingency. Though if the event on which the instrument is to become payable, must inevitably happen, it is no objection that it is uncertain when it will happen ; nor is it of any importance how long the payment may be *182in suspense; it will still be regarded as…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stevens v. BluntMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Brewster v. SilenceNew York Supreme Court · 1851
3Cited by1 opinion
- Blackman v. Lehman, Durr & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1879