Hicks v. McGrorty
The Superior Court of New York City
This action was brought by the plaintiffs, as the assignees of the firm of Thompson and Co., to recover the sum of $228.87, with interest, for goods sold and delivered by T. & Co. to the defendant. The answer did not deny the sale, but claimed to set-off a promissory note from Thompson & Co. to the defendant, for $653.70, dated May 16th, 1851, payable seven months after date.
Read the full summary
This action was brought by the plaintiffs, as the assignees of the firm of Thompson and Co., to recover the sum of $228.87, with interest, for goods sold and delivered by T. & Co. to the defendant. The answer did not deny the sale, but claimed to set-off a promissory note from Thompson & Co. to the defendant, for $653.70, dated May 16th, 1851, payable seven months after date. The credit for the goods expired on or before the 18th of December, 1851. The promissory note fell due on the day following. The action was tried before Mr. Justice Paute and a jury, on the 12th October, 1852. The…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The proof is satisfactory, if not conclusive, that the assets of Thompson & Co. will be wholly insufficient to satisfy their debts, and we therefore think that the plaintiffs are entitled to the same protection as assignees for value against the set-off which is claimed. The defendant, as against them, had no subsisting equity when the assignment was made; not only was the note held by him, not due at that time, but it did not become due until he had become liable to the plaintiff.
Judgment for the plaintiffs, with costs. (Vide Keep v. Lord, ante p, 78.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Martin v. . KunzmullerNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Martin v. KunzmullerNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Schieffelin v. HawkinsNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1862
- Taylor v. WeirAppellate Court of Illinois · 1896
- Pardo v. OsgoodThe Superior Court of New York City · 1867
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.