Considerant v. Brisbane

6 Duer 686
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Considerant v. Brisbane. Read the opinion of the Court — 14 How. Pr. 487
The Superior Court of New York City·Decided October 15, 1857·Published

Opinion

In a complaint upon a written instrument, by which the defendant promised to pay to the plaintiff, “ as executive agent of the company, Bureau, Guillon, Godin & Co., the sum of $5000, for which I am to receive stock of said company, known as premium stock, (actions a primh,) to the amount of $5000, value received,” it is necessary to allege that the stock was delivered, or an offer to deliver it, on the day on which the $5000 was payable, or it will be bad on demurrer.

Such an instrument is not a negotiable promissory note, and cannot be declared on as such. (Reported in 14 How. Pr. R. 487.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Considerant v. Brisbane, 6 Duer 686 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1857).

6 Duer 686 (Considerant v. Brisbane) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.