Fairchild v. Warren

The Superior Court of New York City

Fairchild v. Warren

21 How. Pr. 187

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedMay 15, 1861

StatusPublished

This text of 21 How. Pr. 187 (Fairchild v. Warren) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fairchild v. Warren, 21 How. Pr. 187 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

Bosworth, Justice.

An agreement made at the maturity of a note between the maker and holder, that on payment of part of the note, and an agreement to pay the residue, with interest, four months thereafter, to extend the time of payment of such residue for four months, and payment and acceptance of said part ($100,) is not a sufficient consideration to render the agreement to extend the time of payment obligatory. The holder of the note obtains nothing to which he was not entitled, and the maker parts with nothing that he had a right to withhold.

Motion granted, with $10 costs.

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

Bosworth, Justice.

An agreement made at the maturity of a note between the maker and holder, that on payment of part of the note, and an agreement to pay the residue, with interest, four months thereafter, to extend the time of payment of such residue for four months, and payment and acceptance of said part ($100,) is not a sufficient consideration to render the agreement to extend the time of payment obligatory. The holder of the note obtains nothing to which he was not entitled, and the maker parts with nothing that he had a right to withhold.

Motion granted, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 How. Pr. 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fairchild-v-warren-nysuperctnyc-1861.