Todd v. Crookshanks
3 Johns. 432
Opinion
There was no foundation for the action below. After the note was paid, and a receipt in full given, by one of the payees, it was completely discharged, so as to be of no value. The note did not belong to the plaintiff, and it might be useful to Todd, the other payee, who was a co-executor, to show that he had not received the money. An action of trover will lie for a note in the hands of a third person ; but such an action as this was never before brought.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Todd v. Crookshanks, 3 Johns. 432 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1808).
3 Johns. 432 (Todd v. Crookshanks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gibbs v. Usher
10 F. Cas. 303 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1874)
Savery v. Hays
20 Iowa 25 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1865)
Dame v. Dame
43 N.H. 37 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1861)
Stone v. Clough
41 N.H. 290 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1860)
Campbell v. . Butts
3 N.Y. 173 (New York Court of Appeals, 1849)
Exeter Bank v. Gordon
8 N.H. 66 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1835)
Rhoades v. Selin
20 F. Cas. 631 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1827)
Robinson v. Batchelder
4 N.H. 40 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1827)