President of the Bank of Columbia v. Southerland

3 Cow. 336
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1824·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Curia.

It is irregular to come in this form. Like all

.other questions arising on the trial, which relate to the direction of the Judge, o.r points reserved there, it should be brought here upon a case made. But the practice is well settled, upon the facts before us, that, in a case like this, where money may be properly paid into Court, the sum paid in must be considered as stricken out of the declaration. It is a defence, pro tanto, and unless the plaintiff proves a sum beyond what is paid, there should be a verdict for the defendant. We deny this motion, with costs; but as the form of bringing it forward has been misapprehended, we give the defendants ten days, within which to make a case, and bring the question properly before us.

Rule accordingly.

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

President of the Bank of Columbia v. Southerland, 3 Cow. 336 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1824).

3 Cow. 336 (President of the Bank of Columbia v. Southerland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sanders v. Mosbarger
141 S.W. 720 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
Mann v. . Sprout
77 N.E. 1018 (New York Court of Appeals, 1906)
Supply Ditch Co. v. Elliott
10 Colo. 327 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1887)
Wilson v. Doran
46 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 88 (New York Supreme Court, 1886)
Brown v. People
3 Colo. 115 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1876)
Brush v. Kohn
14 Abb. Pr. 51 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1862)
Logue v. Gillick
1 E.D. Smith 398 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1852)