Hendricks v. Judah

1 Johns. 319
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1806·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per curiam.

By the testimony of the defendants, it appears that the note had been bonajide transferred to a third person, to whom it belonged, and the suit is brought by the trustee of such third person. The note was payable on demand, and the suit brought within a year, so that it must have been transferred within that time. It may have been indorsed soon after its date, and as the transaction was in England, we may intend that to be the case, as no evidence to the contrary has been offered. The judge, therefore, was right in rejecting the proof offered by the defendants, as to a set-off against the demand of the original payee, until it had been proved that the note had been transferred for a fraudulent purpose, or at a later period at least, than was to be presumed from the facts which appeared.

Rule refused.

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

Hendricks v. Judah, 1 Johns. 319 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1806).

1 Johns. 319 (Hendricks v. Judah) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Herrick v. Woolverton
42 Barb. 50 (New York Supreme Court, 1864)
Goodwin v. Davenport
47 Me. 112 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1860)
Weeks v. Pryor
27 Barb. 79 (New York Supreme Court, 1858)
Noxon v. De Wolf
76 Mass. 343 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1858)
Burnham v. Wood
8 N.H. 334 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1836)
Woods v. Carlisle
6 N.H. 27 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1832)
Ross v. Knight
4 N.H. 236 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1827)
Sice v. Cunningham
1 Cow. 397 (New York Supreme Court, 1823)