Prindle v. . Caruthers
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
The defendant demurs to the complaint for not stating the necessary facts to constitute a cause of action. The first ground of demurrer alleged is, that no consideration is stated, to uphold the promise. But the instrument declared on purports to be for value received, and being set out in the complaint it is sufficient allegation of consideration. Such was held to be the rule of pleading under the old forms. (Jerome v. Whitney, 7John., 321; Walrad Bowman v. Petrie Gould, 4 Wend., 575.) The third ground of demurrer is, that no delivery of the obligation is alleged. This objection is answered…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bleecker v. BallouNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Jerome v. WhitneyNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Walrad v. PetrieNew York Supreme Court · 1830
3Cited by67 opinions
- Marie v. . GarrisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Blair v. . BartlettNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Stewart v. BalderstonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1872
- Burrall v. . Bushwick Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- National Citizens' Bank v. . ToplitzNew York Court of Appeals · 1904
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.