Ingalls v. Lord

1 Cow. 240
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1823·Published·Cited by 19 cases

Opinion

Curia.

The note being a chose in action, could not be levied on nor sold. (Denton v. Livingston, 9 John. 100.) If [241]*241levied upon, as the goods of Ingalls, the act was illegal and void. And if the note was taken as security for money advanced; or agreed to be advanced, the transaction was also illegal. This Court has viewed, with great jealousy, the conduct of officers holding executions against defendants. (Reed v. Pruyn & Staats, 7 John. 426, 30. Sherman v. Boyce, 15 id. 443, 7.) The value of the note was the amount due thereon ; as no evidence was given to reduce that value, either by shewing payment, or the insolvency of the maker, or any facts to invalidate the nóte. It has frequently been decided, that a party may reverse his own judgment, for errors

Judgment reversed.

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

Ingalls v. Lord, 1 Cow. 240 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1823).

1 Cow. 240 (Ingalls v. Lord) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Inter-State Finance Corp. v. Commercial Jewelry Co.
117 N.E. 440 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1917)
Blanchard v. Neill
91 A. 811 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1914)
Whitehead v. Heidenheimer
57 A.D. 590 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
Dean v. Nichols & Shepard Co.
63 N.W. 582 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1895)
Duffy v. Dawson
21 N.Y.S. 978 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1893)
Cosand v. Bunker
50 N.W. 84 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1891)
Crawford v. Schmitz
41 Ill. App. 357 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1891)
Atkinson v. Rochester Printing Co.
50 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 167 (New York Supreme Court, 1887)
In re Wilson
12 F. 235 (S.D. New York, 1882)
First National Bank v. Fourth National Bank
77 N.Y. 320 (New York Court of Appeals, 1879)
Thayer v. . Manley
73 N.Y. 305 (New York Court of Appeals, 1878)
Cothran v. Hanover National Bank
8 Jones & S. 401 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1876)
Harris v. Equitable Life Assurance Society
6 Thomp. & Cook 108 (New York Supreme Court, 1875)
Hart v. Hoffman
44 How. Pr. 168 (New York Court of Appeals, 1870)
Latham v. Brown
16 Iowa 118 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1864)
Bissell v. New York Central Railroad
9 N.Y. 61 (New York Court of Appeals, 1861)
Bissell v. . the New York Central R.R. Company
23 N.Y. 61 (New York Court of Appeals, 1861)
Decker v. Mathews
5 Sandf. 439 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1852)
Cocke v. Chaney
14 Ala. 65 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1848)