Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of the State of New York (Volume 41) (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated.1874 Excerpt: ... I Opinion of the Court, per Fobteb, J. v. Nickerson, 13 Mass., 131, 137.) Seven days. (Thurston v. McKenn, 6 Mass, 428.) And even a month (Ranger v. Gary, 1 Mete., 369), is not too long. While eight months American Sank v. Jenness (2 Mete., 288); Ayers v. Hutchins (i Mass., 370), three months and a half. (Stevens v. Bi ice, 21 Pick., 193.) And even two months and a half. (Losee v. Durkin, 7 J. R., 70); and Sice v. Cunningham (1 Cowen, 397, 404), have been deemed sufficient to discredit a note. The statute of limitations commences to run from the date of a note payable on demand, whether without interest. (Newman v. Kettelle, 13 Pick., 418; Larson v. Lambert, 7 Halst., 247; Kingsbury v. Butler, 4 Verm. Rep., 458), or whether it be with interest. (Mason v. Mohawk Ins. Co., 13 Wend., 267.) Cowen, J., in Wethey v. Andrews, and the chief judge, in Merrit v. Todd, appeared to suppose that in regard to the time when demand notes became due, there was a difference in England between those payable with interest, and those on demand merely. And yet I think it will be found that no such distinction prevails there. Formerly, notes on demand, were held to bo due immediately. (Copj) v. Doncaster Cro. Eliz., 548.) Where it was contended that the said demand was parcel of the contract, so that the money was not due until demand, and that a demand by bringing the action would not do, but the court said, the duty of payment was "a duty maintained, and, therefore, these need no demand, as in other cases." (Remhall v. Boyle, 10 Modern Rep., 38.) Where in an action upon a note payable on demand, it was moved in arrest of judgment that no demand was alleged in the declaration; but the court held it to be a debt inprexenti, and that it wa a debt plainly precedent to any demand. C...

R561

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles5610
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated.1874 Excerpt: ... I Opinion of the Court, per Fobteb, J. v. Nickerson, 13 Mass., 131, 137.) Seven days. (Thurston v. McKenn, 6 Mass, 428.) And even a month (Ranger v. Gary, 1 Mete., 369), is not too long. While eight months American Sank v. Jenness (2 Mete., 288); Ayers v. Hutchins (i Mass., 370), three months and a half. (Stevens v. Bi ice, 21 Pick., 193.) And even two months and a half. (Losee v. Durkin, 7 J. R., 70); and Sice v. Cunningham (1 Cowen, 397, 404), have been deemed sufficient to discredit a note. The statute of limitations commences to run from the date of a note payable on demand, whether without interest. (Newman v. Kettelle, 13 Pick., 418; Larson v. Lambert, 7 Halst., 247; Kingsbury v. Butler, 4 Verm. Rep., 458), or whether it be with interest. (Mason v. Mohawk Ins. Co., 13 Wend., 267.) Cowen, J., in Wethey v. Andrews, and the chief judge, in Merrit v. Todd, appeared to suppose that in regard to the time when demand notes became due, there was a difference in England between those payable with interest, and those on demand merely. And yet I think it will be found that no such distinction prevails there. Formerly, notes on demand, were held to bo due immediately. (Copj) v. Doncaster Cro. Eliz., 548.) Where it was contended that the said demand was parcel of the contract, so that the money was not due until demand, and that a demand by bringing the action would not do, but the court said, the duty of payment was "a duty maintained, and, therefore, these need no demand, as in other cases." (Remhall v. Boyle, 10 Modern Rep., 38.) Where in an action upon a note payable on demand, it was moved in arrest of judgment that no demand was alleged in the declaration; but the court held it to be a debt inprexenti, and that it wa a debt plainly precedent to any demand. C...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

General Books LLC

Country of origin

United States

Release date

February 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

February 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 13mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

244

ISBN-13

978-1-154-39268-5

Barcode

9781154392685

Categories

LSN

1-154-39268-6



Trending On Loot