Daniels & Lamont v. Hallenbeck
New York Supreme Court
Error from the Tioga common pleas. Hallenbeck declared against Daniels and Lamont on a promissory note payable 1st May, 1530. The defendants pleaded separately.
Read the full summary
Error from the Tioga common pleas. Hallenbeck declared against Daniels and Lamont on a promissory note payable 1st May, 1530. The defendants pleaded separately. Among the pleas, besides the general issue, were the following : 1st, that on the 1st July, 1831, it was agreed by the plaintiff, in consideration that Daniels would sell and deliver a yoke of cattle, for which the note was given to one William Munro, he, the plaintiff, would take Munro as paymaster of the note—and it was then averred that Daniels did sell and deliver the cattle to Munro, and that the plaintiff did then and there take…
1Opinion of the Court
*410 By the Court,
Bronson, J.
The 3d plea of Lamont and the 2d plea of Daniels are substantially alike. So are the replications to those pleas. It is unnecessary to examine the replications, for the pleas are good for nothing. The defendants have not pleaded payment; but have pleaded that the plaintiff agreed to take Munro, a third person as paymaster of the note. Such a plea should never have found its way upon the record, it should have been struck out as frivolous.
The 2d plea of Lamont and the 3d plea of Daniels are substantially alike, and so are the replications to those pleas. The pleas are…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Law v. MerrillsCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1830
- Russell v. LytleNew York Supreme Court · 1831
3Cited by15 opinions
- Atlantic Dock Co. v. . Mayor, Etc., N.Y. CityNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Hook v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Mitchell v. HawleyNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Robinson v. St. Johnsbury & Lake Champlain RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1907
- Arnett v. SmithNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1902
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.