Leonard v. Mason

New York Supreme Court

Leonard v. Mason

1 Wend. 522

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1828

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 1 Wend. 522 (Leonard v. Mason) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leonard v. Mason, 1 Wend. 522 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1828).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

The only- question is, whether the order which the defendant accepted, is a good bill of exchange: if so, a parol acceptance is good. It is supposed that this case depends on the same principles as the case of Cook v. Satterlee & Satterlee, (6 Cowen, 108.) The rule there recognized is, that a bill of exchange must be for the payment of money, and nothing else. In that case, the drawees were required to pay a certain sum of money, and take up a note given by the drawer to a third person. Here it is to pay & note, which is referred to merely to ascertain the amount ; and the retaining the note as a voucher, is no more the performance of another act beside the payment of the money, than the retaining the order itself for the same purpose.

The court erred. The judgment must be reversed, and a venire de novo is awarded to Onondaga common pleas.

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

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

The only- question is, whether the order which the defendant accepted, is a good bill of exchange: if so, a parol acceptance is good. It is supposed that this case depends on the same principles as the case of Cook v. Satterlee & Satterlee, (6 Cowen, 108.) The rule there recognized is, that a bill of exchange must be for the payment of money, and nothing else. In that case, the drawees were required to pay a certain sum of money, and take up a note given by the drawer to a third person. Here it is to pay & note, which is referred to merely to ascertain the amount ; and the retaining the note as a voucher, is no more the performance of another act beside the payment of the money, than the retaining the order itself for the same purpose.

The court erred. The judgment must be reversed, and a venire de novo is awarded to Onondaga common pleas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wend. 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-v-mason-nysupct-1828.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack