Lobdell v. Hopkins

5 Cow. 516
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1826
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 5 Cow. 516 (Lobdell v. Hopkins) 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
Lobdell v. Hopkins, 5 Cow. 516 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1826).

Opinion

Curia, per Savage, Ch. J.

On the merits, the only question is, was a demand necessary before action brought ?

The note declared on refers to another contract, which, if produced, might have shown a time and place of payment ; and perhaps a specific mode; but the note, unexplained, amounts to a note payable in specific articles without time or place ; and the want of time renders it payable on demand. On such a note, a special demand is neces[518]*518sary. (Smith v. Leavensworth, 1 Root, 209. Bach v Owen, 5 T. R. 409. Chandler v. Windship, 6 Mass. Rep 310. Benners v. Executors of Howard, Tayl. Rep. N. C. 149.)

The question has also been examined, by the counsel for the defendant, where this demand should be anade ? Mr. Chipman in his valuable treatise, says, “ If the note be payable in specific articles, on demand, and no place of payment be designated, the debtor’s place of residence is the place of payment, and the payment must be there demanded.” (Chipm. Tr. 49, and vid. id. 28-9.) This case is analogous to that of a due bill without time or place, given by a merchant for goods, or a mechanic for work. Surely the goods must be demanded of the merchant at his store, or of the mechanic at his shop, before a suit can be sustained. The instrument in question is payable by a farmer in farm produce. Certainly there should have been a demand at the debtor’s farm.

Judgment affirmed,

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

Related

Germ-Proof Filter Co. v. Pasteur-Chamberland Filter Co.
30 N.Y.S. 584 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)
Cosand v. Bunker
50 N.W. 84 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1891)
Janney v. Sleeper
16 N.W. 365 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1883)
Ragland v. Wood
71 Ala. 145 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1881)
Widner v. Walsh
3 Colo. 548 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1877)
Counsel v. Vulture Mining Company of Arizona
5 Daly 74 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1874)
Weil v. Tyler
38 Mo. 545 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1866)
Morey v. Enke
5 Minn. 392 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1861)
Stevens v. Adams
45 Me. 611 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1858)
Musselman v. Stoner
31 Pa. 265 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1858)
Dunn v. Marston
34 Me. 379 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1852)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Cow. 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lobdell-v-hopkins-nysupct-1826.