Curtis v. Smallman
New York Supreme Court
Error from the Onondaga common pleas. Smallman sued Curtis in a justice’s court. The suit was commenced 6th January, 1834. On the trial, the plaintiff produced a due bill given by one S. Gilson, whereby Gilson acknowledged to be due to Curtis or bearer the sum of $22,64, with use since June 24, 1833, with an endorsement on the back thereof, signed by Curtis, in these words: “ I warrant this note good. June 27, 1833.” The defendant admitted his signature.
Read the full summary
Error from the Onondaga common pleas. Smallman sued Curtis in a justice’s court. The suit was commenced 6th January, 1834. On the trial, the plaintiff produced a due bill given by one S. Gilson, whereby Gilson acknowledged to be due to Curtis or bearer the sum of $22,64, with use since June 24, 1833, with an endorsement on the back thereof, signed by Curtis, in these words: “ I warrant this note good. June 27, 1833.” The defendant admitted his signature. The plaintiff rested. The defendant moved for a nonsuit, which the justice refused to grant. The justice took time to deliberate, and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Sutherland, J.
I think the court of common pleas erred. The note or due bill must be considered as bearing date the 24th of June. It was due immediately, that is, on demand. The guaranty bore date the 27th of June, three days afterwards. The natural construction of the terms of the warranty, I think is, that the note should be a good and available one to the plaintiff; not that it should be paid on demand, but that payment of it might be enforced. This would be the import of these terms in ordinary parlance. If an individual, upon inquiry, should say that a note of a particular…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Bosman v. AkeleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
- Evans v. BellTexas Supreme Court · 1876
- Peck v. FrinkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
- Van Derveer v. WrightNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Cady v. SheldonNew York Supreme Court · 1862
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.