Hall v. Newcomb

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Hall v. Newcomb

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 49

CourtCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

DecidedJuly 1, 1799

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 49 (Hall v. Newcomb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hall v. Newcomb, 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 49 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court of Errors also affirmed the non suit, on the ground that such an endorsement merely engaged the endorser upon the usual conditions of demand and notice, and that parol evidence was inadmissible to vary the legal effect of his undertaking, and that he could not be made liable to H. as guarantor or maker, but only as endorser.

gQ” The ease of Nelson v. Dubois, overruled, as it seems to be, by this decision of the Court of Errors, was an action upon a promissory note, payable to bearer, and endorsed in blank, in which the Supreme Court held, that the holder may in such a case, or in the case of a note not negotiable, write over the name of the endorser a guaranty or promise to pay the note, so as to take the case out of the statute [50]*50of frauds; and that this may he done at any time before or at the trial of the cause. (13 J. R. 175.)

In that case, it was also held, that a declaration or a promise, (by parol,) mightbe supported by a promise in writing, if it comported with the promise stated.

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

The Court of Errors also affirmed the non suit, on the ground that such an endorsement merely engaged the endorser upon the usual conditions of demand and notice, and that parol evidence was inadmissible to vary the legal effect of his undertaking, and that he could not be made liable to H. as guarantor or maker, but only as endorser.

gQ” The ease of Nelson v. Dubois, overruled, as it seems to be, by this decision of the Court of Errors, was an action upon a promissory note, payable to bearer, and endorsed in blank, in which the Supreme Court held, that the holder may in such a case, or in the case of a note not negotiable, write over the name of the endorser a guaranty or promise to pay the note, so as to take the case out of the statute [50]*50of frauds; and that this may he done at any time before or at the trial of the cause. (13 J. R. 175.)

In that case, it was also held, that a declaration or a promise, (by parol,) mightbe supported by a promise in writing, if it comported with the promise stated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-newcomb-nycterr-1799.