O'Callaghan v. Sawyer
5 Johns. 118
Opinion
The set-off ought to have been received. The note had long been due and dishonoured, when it was indorsed; and the point has been too long settled, and too repeatedly recognised, to require any discussion now, that the indorsee took the note, subject to all the equity, and to every defence which existed against it, in the hands of the original payee. (2 Caines, 372. 1 Johns. Rep. 319. 3 Term Rep. 80.) The judgment below must be reversed.
Judgment reversed,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
O'Callaghan v. Sawyer, 5 Johns. 118 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1809).
5 Johns. 118 (O'Callaghan v. Sawyer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Stegal v. Union Bank & Federal Trust Co.
176 S.E. 438 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1934)
Leavitt v. Peabody
62 N.H. 185 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1882)
Fitch v. Gates
39 Conn. 366 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1872)
Kilcrease v. White
6 Fla. 45 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1855)
De Mott v. Starkey
3 Barb. Ch. 403 (New York Court of Chancery, 1848)
Miner v. Hoyt
4 Hill & Den. 193 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1843)
Chandler v. Drew
6 N.H. 469 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1834)
Perry v. Mays
18 S.C.L. 354 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1831)
Greene v. Darling
10 F. Cas. 1144 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island, 1828)
Havens v. Huntington
1 Cow. 387 (New York Supreme Court, 1823)
Cromwell v. Arrott
1 Serg. & Rawle 180 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1814)