Howell v. Wright
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment, entered upon a verdict rendered at the Oswego Circuit, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made upon the minutes and upon the exceptions taken by the plaintiff, and on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence given on the trial and was wholly unsupported by any evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment, entered upon a verdict rendered at the Oswego Circuit, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made upon the minutes and upon the exceptions taken by the plaintiff, and on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence given on the trial and was wholly unsupported by any evidence. The action was brought upon a promissory note executed by the defendant in the following language, viz.: “$1,535.55. Eulton, Oswego County, N. Y., ) September 3, 188é. ) “ Six months after date I promise to pay to O. Howell, or bearer, fifteen hundred thirty-five and dollars…
1Opinion of the Court
Hardin, P. J.:
When the plaintiff produced the promissory note and read the same in evidence it established prima facie a sufficient consideration, The words “ value received,” are sufficient prima fade to make out a consideration for the promise contained in the note. (Hinman v. Moulton, 14 Johns., 466 ; Bank of Troy v. Topping, 9 Wend., 273.)
It is well settled that one promise is a good consideration for another. (Briggs v. Tillotson, 8 Johns., 304.) However, they must be concurrent. (Cooke v. Oxley, 3 D. & E., 653 ; Livingston v. Rogers, Coleman & C. Cases, 331.) An agreement to render…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Converse v. KelloggNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Bank of Troy v. ToppingNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Briggs v. TillotsonNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Miller v. DrakeNew York Supreme Court · 1803
- Beckwith v. . BrackettNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.