Husbrook v. Wilder
Wisconsin Supreme Court
ERROR to the District Court for Rode County. Wilder brought an action of assumpsit in the' Rock county district court on a promissory note of which the following is a copy: “ June 24,1831. “For value received, I promise to pay Cook Husbrook, or bearer, $100, as witness my hand. “MAHLON HUSBROOK.” “Indorsed. “ August 28, 1832, received on th® within $35.” The declaration contained a count on the note, and the common counts and a copy of note.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court for Rode County. Wilder brought an action of assumpsit in the' Rock county district court on a promissory note of which the following is a copy: “ June 24,1831. “For value received, I promise to pay Cook Husbrook, or bearer, $100, as witness my hand. “MAHLON HUSBROOK.” “Indorsed. “ August 28, 1832, received on th® within $35.” The declaration contained a count on the note, and the common counts and a copy of note. The defendant pleaded the general issue and filed an account in set-off amounting to $155. The cause was tried at the April term, 1845, and a verdict and…
1Opinion of the CourtMiller, J.
The defendant in error sued the plaintiff in error in assumpsit, and declared specially upon the note in suit, with the common counts, and a copy of said note attached. The note was payable for value received, without the mention of any time. The only question raised at the trial was, whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest from the date of the note. The court decided in favor of the plaintiff.
A promissory note is perfect without date or time of payment. Mitchell v. Culver, 7 Cow. 336. This note is an acknowledgment of an existing debt, payable immediately, and bears interest from its…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Gaylord v. Van LoanNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Mitchell v. CulverNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Russell v. WhippleNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- Francis v. CastlemanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1815
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bast v. SprollWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922