Butler v. Wright
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plain- . , , tiff, as endorsee of a promissory note, against the defendant, as endorser. The note, dated November 22, 1816, was made by Joseph A. Bostwklc, for 1,500 dollars, payable to the defendant, or order, at the Middle District Bank. The declaration was in the usual form, with the common money counts. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit and payment.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plain- . , , tiff, as endorsee of a promissory note, against the defendant, as endorser. The note, dated November 22, 1816, was made by Joseph A. Bostwklc, for 1,500 dollars, payable to the defendant, or order, at the Middle District Bank. The declaration was in the usual form, with the common money counts. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit and payment. The cause was tried at the Dutchess circuit, in April, 1821, before Mr. Justice Yates. When the note fell due, it was protested for non-payment, and regular notice of the non-payment was given…
1Opinion of the Court
Spencer, Ch. J.
The plaintiff cannot sustain an action on the note, as that would, in effect, be subdividing the cause of action, and subjecting the defendant to two actions for the same cause. In the case of Hawkins v. Cardy, (1 Lord Raym. 360.) the bill was for 46 pounds, 19 shillings, and it was endorsed to the plaintiff, specially, for 43 pounds, 4 shillings. Upon demurrer, the Court were of opinion, that the declaration was had; for that such *369a personal contract could not be apportioned; and that no person could be made liable to two actions, where, by the contract, he was liable to one…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Corey v. WhiteNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Garr v. . MartinNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Neass v. MercerNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- Leeke v. HancockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Barker v. CassidyNew York Supreme Court · 1853
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.