A Treatise on the Law of Damages; Embracing an Elementary Exposition of the Law, and Also Its Application to Particular Subjects of Contract and Tort Volume 1 (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1893 edition. Excerpt: ...Iron Works v. Hall, 34 Mich. 165; Brown v. Dunckel, 46 id 32; Keel v. Larkin, 72 Ala. 493; Morris v. Harveys, 75 Va. 726; Hall v. Stevens, 116 N. Y. 201 (contemporaneous debt). The intention to receive a note and collaterals in payment is inferable from an entry in the creditor's books to the effect that they were received in settlement of balance, and a receipt expressing that they were in settlement of the above account Williams, Ex parte, 17 S. C. 396. In Griffin v. Anderson, 3 S. C. 105. the words "settled in full" in the bond of a commissioner were considered sufficient to indicate that a note was taken in payment of a balance due from him. See In re Hurst, 1 Flip. 462. If notes secured by a mortgage nearly equal in amount to the debt are given and the balance is paid in cash, and part of the notes are used by the creditor, the debt is extinguished. Quidnuck Co. v. Chafee, 13 R I. 438. 2 Riverside Iron Works v. Hall, 64 Mich. 165; Brown v. Dunckel, 46 id. 32; Morris v. Harveys, 75 Va. 726; Fidelity Ins. etc. Co. v. Shenandoah V. R Co., 86 id 1; Burchard v. Frazer, 23 Mich. 224. Where the new note is made by a third person the surrender of the old will be, prima facie, a discharge of it and a release of its maker from personal liability; but not if the holder of the old note had a specific lien on land as security for the debt and the result of giving the new note is to make the person liable on it the owner of the land, part of the consideration being the uew note. Hess v. Dille,23W. Va. 90; Merchants' Nat Bank v. Good, 21 id. 455. Walker, C. J., in Strong v. King, 35 I1l. 9, 19, said: "The bare reception of a check from the drawer for the amount of the bill will not, ordinarily, be considered as payment but only as a...

R732

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

Discovery Miles7320
Mobicred@R69pm x 12* Mobicred Info
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 usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1893 edition. Excerpt: ...Iron Works v. Hall, 34 Mich. 165; Brown v. Dunckel, 46 id 32; Keel v. Larkin, 72 Ala. 493; Morris v. Harveys, 75 Va. 726; Hall v. Stevens, 116 N. Y. 201 (contemporaneous debt). The intention to receive a note and collaterals in payment is inferable from an entry in the creditor's books to the effect that they were received in settlement of balance, and a receipt expressing that they were in settlement of the above account Williams, Ex parte, 17 S. C. 396. In Griffin v. Anderson, 3 S. C. 105. the words "settled in full" in the bond of a commissioner were considered sufficient to indicate that a note was taken in payment of a balance due from him. See In re Hurst, 1 Flip. 462. If notes secured by a mortgage nearly equal in amount to the debt are given and the balance is paid in cash, and part of the notes are used by the creditor, the debt is extinguished. Quidnuck Co. v. Chafee, 13 R I. 438. 2 Riverside Iron Works v. Hall, 64 Mich. 165; Brown v. Dunckel, 46 id. 32; Morris v. Harveys, 75 Va. 726; Fidelity Ins. etc. Co. v. Shenandoah V. R Co., 86 id 1; Burchard v. Frazer, 23 Mich. 224. Where the new note is made by a third person the surrender of the old will be, prima facie, a discharge of it and a release of its maker from personal liability; but not if the holder of the old note had a specific lien on land as security for the debt and the result of giving the new note is to make the person liable on it the owner of the land, part of the consideration being the uew note. Hess v. Dille,23W. Va. 90; Merchants' Nat Bank v. Good, 21 id. 455. Walker, C. J., in Strong v. King, 35 I1l. 9, 19, said: "The bare reception of a check from the drawer for the amount of the bill will not, ordinarily, be considered as payment but only as a...

Customer Reviews

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

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

September 2013

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

September 2013

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 25mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

496

ISBN-13

978-1-236-78954-9

Barcode

9781236789549

Categories

LSN

1-236-78954-7



Trending On Loot