Dederick v. Leman

9 Johns. 333
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1812·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Here was a bond executed in the year 1790, conditioned to pay 771. on a day past, with interest ; and the plea is, that the husband of one of the heirs paid to the plaintifl on the 13th February, 1798, "3l. 9s. 7d. which he accepted and receiv~ ed in full payment of the sum in the condition mentioned, and in full of all demands whatsoever." This plea is demurred to; and it is palpably bad, either as a plea of payment, or of accord and satisfaction. The authorities to this point are referred to by the court, in Watkinson v. Inglesby & Stokes. (5 Johns. Rep. 391.)

- Judgment for the plaintiff

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

Dederick v. Leman, 9 Johns. 333 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1812).

9 Johns. 333 (Dederick v. Leman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Forest v. Davis
20 Misc. 1 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1897)
Morrison v. Gold Mountain Gold Mining Co.
52 Cal. 306 (California Supreme Court, 1877)
Bunge v. . Koop
48 N.Y. 225 (New York Court of Appeals, 1872)
Hammond v. Christie
5 Rob. 160 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1867)
Von Gerhard v. Lighte
13 Abb. Pr. 101 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1861)
Kidd v. Dennison
6 Barb. 9 (New York Supreme Court, 1849)