Loomis v. Pulver
This text of 9 Johns. 244 (Loomis v. Pulver) 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.
Opinion
Several objections were stated to this recovery, but the principal one is, that the plaintiff ought to have set up this payment as a defence against the notes. As the notes were pay» [245]*245~b1e on demand, and not negotiated until two years after the date of them, the person to whom they were transferred took them subject to all equity, and to the previous payment, or accounts, against the defendant. There is no doubt that this formed a good defence against the notes; and if the plaintiff' neglected to make this defence~ he is precluded from making that recovery a ground of action against the defendaiit. This was the acknowledged doc~ trine, in the case of Le Guem v. Gouvermeur & Kemble. (1 .Johns. Cas. 436.) On this ground, the judgment was erroneous, and must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
9 Johns. 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loomis-v-pulver-nysupct-1812.