Herrick v. Bennett

8 Johns. 374
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1811·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is to be presumed that the plaintiff has stated the note, in his declaration," according to the terms of it, and that is sufficient. The conclusion of the law is, that where no time of payment is specified in a [375]*375note, it is payable immediately. The first count, then, ** . ' . shows a cause of action, and the plaintiff is entitled to Judgment.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

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

Herrick v. Bennett, 8 Johns. 374 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).

8 Johns. 374 (Herrick v. Bennett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gibbs v. Blanchard
15 Mich. 292 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1867)
White v. Tarbell
27 Vt. 573 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1855)
Okie v. Spencer
2 Whart. 253 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1837)