Davidson v. Hutchins

New York Court of Common Pleas

Davidson v. Hutchins

1 Hilt. 123

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedMay 15, 1856

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Hilt. 123 (Davidson v. Hutchins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davidson v. Hutchins, 1 Hilt. 123 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1856).

Pincite

Opinion

Daly, J.

This judgment must be reversed upon several grounds. 1. The process was by short summons, and there was no proof that the defendants were non-residents. Sperry v. Major, 1 E. D. Smith, 361. 2. There was no proof that the makers of the note were partners. The admission of the defendant Hutchins could not be received to bind the defendant Sawyer; and, beyond his admissions, there was no evidence offered of the making of the note. 3. The note was made payable to the order of the defendant Rowland, and there was no evidence that [126]*126be had endorsed it, or of any title to it in the plaintiff. 4. Starr, the only witness examined in the case by the plaintiffs, testified that the- amount due upon the note was $203.61, and the justice gave judgment for $294.11.

Judgment rev&rsed.

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

Daly, J.

This judgment must be reversed upon several grounds. 1. The process was by short summons, and there was no proof that the defendants were non-residents. Sperry v. Major, 1 E. D. Smith, 361. 2. There was no proof that the makers of the note were partners. The admission of the defendant Hutchins could not be received to bind the defendant Sawyer; and, beyond his admissions, there was no evidence offered of the making of the note. 3. The note was made payable to the order of the defendant Rowland, and there was no evidence that [126]*126be had endorsed it, or of any title to it in the plaintiff. 4. Starr, the only witness examined in the case by the plaintiffs, testified that the- amount due upon the note was $203.61, and the justice gave judgment for $294.11.

Judgment rev&rsed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Hilt. 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davidson-v-hutchins-nyctcompl-1856.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack