Chamberlain v. Gorham
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, to the Court of Common Pleas of Seneca f county. Gorham brought an action of assumpsit against Chamberlain, in the Court below, and declared on a promissory note made by the defendant (C.) to the plaintiff, (G.) for dollars, payable in four years after date. The note was not made payable to order, or negotiable.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, to the Court of Common Pleas of Seneca f county. Gorham brought an action of assumpsit against Chamberlain, in the Court below, and declared on a promissory note made by the defendant (C.) to the plaintiff, (G.) for dollars, payable in four years after date. The note was not made payable to order, or negotiable. The decíaration averred a loss of the note, and contained the usual money countS. * At the trial, Jacob Fagleman was called as a witness for the plaintiff, and testified that he was the party benefiinterested in the note, which he received of Anthony Snyder, for a horse;…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
There is no doubt that the party m interest may be allowed to testify to the Court, upon the preliminary point, as to the loss of the note or instrument ' *146in order to introduce to the jury parol evidence of its contents. (Jackson v. Frier, 16 Johns. Rep. 193.)
The defence set up by the defendant, if proved, would, undoubtedly, be valid, notwithstanding the assignment of the note, and notice of such assignment; for the note not being negotiable, the assignee must take it subject to all the equity existing at the time of the assignment and notice ; and here, the equity or ground of…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Jackson ex dem. Schaick v. DavisNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- Hedges v. SealyNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Younker ex rel. Ralston v. MartinSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Rosenthal v. RamboIndiana Supreme Court · 1905
- First National Bank v. WoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.