Smith v. . Holmes

New York Court of Appeals

Smith v. . Holmes

19 N.Y. 271

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 5, 1859

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 19 N.Y. 271 (Smith v. . Holmes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. . Holmes, 19 N.Y. 271 (N.Y. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

Neither the summons nor complaint show when the action was commenced. The sheriff's certificate of the service of the summons is evidence of the fact and of the time when the service was made, but it is not a part of the record before the court upon demurrer. Indeed, it is not a necessary part of the record of judgment in any case where the defendant has answered the complaint (Code, §§ 281, 246), either by answer or demurrer. Under the former system of pleading, the declaration was always entitled of a term or *Page 272 as of some particular day, and if from the declaration it appeared that the cause of action had not then accrued, it was good ground of demurrer. (Maynard v. Talcott, 11 Barb., 569.) But as no such title is now necessary a demurrer is not the mode of raising a question of that sort. If such an objection exists in any case, it should be brought up by answer, and then it will be available to the party on the trial if the fact be made out.

The bond in this case is dated May 10, 1853, and is conditioned to be void if the obligor pay the sum therein mentioned "in two years from the first day of April [then] last with annual interest." The demurrer was tried June 12th, 1854. If, therefore, anything was due at that time on the bond, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment. The precise amount due was not brought in question by the demurrer; that only presents the inquiry whether anything was due. Now, whether interest was to be computed from May 10, 1853, or from the first day of April, 1853, it is quite clear that the requirement of annual interest could not be satisfied by the payment of principal and interest, when the principal should become due. The obvious import of the language employed is that an annual payment of interest is to take place, and whether that became due on the 1st of April, or the 10th of May, 1854, is immaterial, as the case is here presented.

The judgment at general term should, therefore, be affirmed.

All the judges concurring,

Judgment affirmed.

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

Neither the summons nor complaint show when the action was commenced. The sheriff's certificate of the service of the summons is evidence of the fact and of the time when the service was made, but it is not a part of the record before the court upon demurrer. Indeed, it is not a necessary part of the record of judgment in any case where the defendant has answered the complaint (Code, §§ 281, 246), either by answer or demurrer. Under the former system of pleading, the declaration was always entitled of a term or *Page 272 as of some particular day, and if from the declaration it appeared that the cause of action had not then accrued, it was good ground of demurrer. (Maynard v. Talcott, 11 Barb., 569.) But as no such title is now necessary a demurrer is not the mode of raising a question of that sort. If such an objection exists in any case, it should be brought up by answer, and then it will be available to the party on the trial if the fact be made out.

The bond in this case is dated May 10, 1853, and is conditioned to be void if the obligor pay the sum therein mentioned "in two years from the first day of April [then] last with annual interest." The demurrer was tried June 12th, 1854. If, therefore, anything was due at that time on the bond, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment. The precise amount due was not brought in question by the demurrer; that only presents the inquiry whether anything was due. Now, whether interest was to be computed from May 10, 1853, or from the first day of April, 1853, it is quite clear that the requirement of annual interest could not be satisfied by the payment of principal and interest, when the principal should become due. The obvious import of the language employed is that an annual payment of interest is to take place, and whether that became due on the 1st of April, or the 10th of May, 1854, is immaterial, as the case is here presented.

The judgment at general term should, therefore, be affirmed.

All the judges concurring,

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 N.Y. 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-holmes-ny-1859.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack