Home/New York Supreme Court/Putnam v. Lewis

Putnam v. Lewis

8 Johns. 389
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1811
StatusPublished
Cited by47 cases

This text of 8 Johns. 389 (Putnam v. Lewis) 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
Putnam v. Lewis, 8 Johns. 389 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Giving the note was no payment of the book debt. It could only suspend the right of action, during the period allowed for payment of the note. (Herring v. Sawyer, January term, 1802, MS.) The time of payment in the note does not appear, and it was the business of the defendant to have shown it, if he relied upon that point, as a defence. As it. is, we are to presume the note was due when the writ was issued in August, 1810. The receipt did not preclude the plaintiff from showing* the facts and circumstances under which it was given. This is a well settled point in this court. The recovery was accordingly correct, and the account being liquidated and agreed to, it of course carried interest.

Motion denied.

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

Related

London Leasing Corp. v. Interfina, Inc.
53 Misc. 2d 657 (New York Supreme Court, 1967)
Cherokee County v. . Meroney
92 S.E. 616 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
National Park Bank v. . Koehler
97 N.E. 463 (New York Court of Appeals, 1912)
Buckley v. Citizens' Insurance Co.
112 A.D. 451 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1906)
Shipman v. Kelley
9 A.D. 316 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Davis v. Parsons
32 N.E. 1117 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Thorman v. Polya
20 N.Y.S. 689 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1892)
Comptoir D'Escompte De Paris v. Dresbach
20 P. 28 (California Supreme Court, 1888)
Stuart v. Lancaster
6 S.E. 139 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1888)
Bank of New Hanover v. Bridgers
3 S.E. 826 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1887)
Fleischmann v. . Stern
90 N.Y. 110 (New York Court of Appeals, 1882)
Heively v. Matteson
6 N.W. 732 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1880)
In re Goodwin
10 F. Cas. 617 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri, 1879)
Bull'S Head Bank v. Koehler
1 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 264 (New York Marine Court, 1878)
Feamster v. Withrow
12 W. Va. 611 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1878)
American Button-Hole, Overseaming & Sewing Machine Co. v. Gurnee
44 Wis. 49 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1878)
Bantz v. Basnett
12 W. Va. 772 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1877)
First National Bank v. Leavitt
65 Mo. 562 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1877)
Burkhalter v. Pratt
1 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 22 (New York Marine Court, 1876)
Wadlington v. Covert
51 Miss. 631 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1875)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Johns. 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putnam-v-lewis-nysupct-1811.