Swift v. Beers
3 Denio 70
Opinion
We have no doubt about this case. The note is directly within the terms of the prohibition of the act of 1840; and we do not doubt but that it was equally within the intention of the legislature. That act has no reference to the circulation of such notes as money, but was designed to prohibit them altogether for any purpose.
The guaranty partakes of the character of the principal contract. It was intended to reinforce and secure it—and is equally illegal. The circuit judge was right in nonsuiting the plaintiffs
New trial denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Swift v. Beers, 3 Denio 70 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1846).
3 Denio 70 (Swift v. Beers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bath Gas Light Co. v. Rowland
84 A.D. 563 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
Bernd v. Lynes
43 A. 189 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1899)
Eising v. Andrews
33 A. 585 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1895)
Denison v. Gibson
24 Mich. 187 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1872)
Otis v. Harrison
36 Barb. 210 (New York Supreme Court, 1862)
Purdy v. Peters
35 Barb. 239 (New York Supreme Court, 1861)
Farmers' Bank v. Burchard
33 Vt. 346 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1860)
Leavitt v. . Blatchford
17 N.Y. 521 (New York Court of Appeals, 1858)
Seneca County Bank v. Lamb
26 Barb. 595 (New York Supreme Court, 1858)
Curtis, Graham & Blatchford v. Leavitt
1 N.Y. 9 (New York Court of Appeals, 1857)
Curtis and Others v. . Leavitt
15 N.Y. 9 (New York Court of Appeals, 1857)
Hogg's Appeal
22 Pa. 479 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1854)
Pelham v. Adams
17 Barb. 384 (New York Supreme Court, 1853)
Bank Commissioners v. St. Lawrence Bank
8 Barb. 436 (New York Supreme Court, 1850)
Leavitt v. . Palmer
3 N.Y. 19 (New York Court of Appeals, 1849)
Leavitt v. Blatchford
5 Barb. 9 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)
Tylee v. Yates
3 Barb. 222 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)