Thorpe v. White

13 Johns. 53
New York Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1816·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

According to the principles adopted by this court, iii the case of M'Millan v, Vanderlip, (12 Johns. Rep. 165.,) the original contract between the parties was an entire contract; and if there had been no subsequent modification, the,, plaintiff could not have recovered upon it until the expiration, bf the year. But the giving of the nóte in question, by the defendants, was, pro tanto, a change or modification of the original agreement, and precludes them. frQm setting up thq original [54] ' agreement against their own note. ' The evidence .offered wás, therefore, properly overruled, and the motion for a new trial must'be denied.

Motion denied.

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

Thorpe v. White, 13 Johns. 53 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1816).

13 Johns. 53 (Thorpe v. White) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Griswold v. Pieratt
42 P. 820 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
Walker v. . Millard
29 N.Y. 375 (New York Court of Appeals, 1864)
Haslack v. Mayers
26 N.J.L. 284 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1857)
Erving v. Ingram
24 N.J.L. 520 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1854)