Velie v. Titus

New York Supreme Court

Velie v. Titus

15 N.Y.S. 467, 67 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 405, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 897, 60 Hun 405, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3283

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 2, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 15 N.Y.S. 467 (Velie v. Titus) 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

Velie v. Titus, 15 N.Y.S. 467, 67 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 405, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 897, 60 Hun 405, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3283 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Pratt, J.

It appears that the plaintiff rendered services to some extent to her grandfather, for which he executed and delivered to her his promissory note. That tlie sum was large for the amount of service shown must be conceded, but the amount was fixed by the maker himself, and he had a right to make his own estimate. It may well be, as held by the referee, that, on account of the relationship between the plaintiff and her grandfather, no promise would be implied to remunerate her for services. But it cannot be said that a claim for such remúneration would be so clearly unfounded that its extinguishment would be no consideration for a promise. The services continued after the note was made, and the circumstances indicate that the continuance of the services may have been, to some extent, amoving cause. The reiterated expressions of Mr. Titus that he wished the note paid, his employing counsel to insure its validity, have weight towards proving a consideration, and it must be remembered that a consideration is implied by law. It was for the defendant to prove affirmatively that no consideration existed. We think not only that he failed to do so, but that a sufficient consideration is affirmatively made out. It follows that the order appealed frpm should be reversed, and the motion to vacate the referee’s report should be granted, with costs to plaintiff of the general and special terms.

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

Pratt, J.

It appears that the plaintiff rendered services to some extent to her grandfather, for which he executed and delivered to her his promissory note. That tlie sum was large for the amount of service shown must be conceded, but the amount was fixed by the maker himself, and he had a right to make his own estimate. It may well be, as held by the referee, that, on account of the relationship between the plaintiff and her grandfather, no promise would be implied to remunerate her for services. But it cannot be said that a claim for such remúneration would be so clearly unfounded that its extinguishment would be no consideration for a promise. The services continued after the note was made, and the circumstances indicate that the continuance of the services may have been, to some extent, amoving cause. The reiterated expressions of Mr. Titus that he wished the note paid, his employing counsel to insure its validity, have weight towards proving a consideration, and it must be remembered that a consideration is implied by law. It was for the defendant to prove affirmatively that no consideration existed. We think not only that he failed to do so, but that a sufficient consideration is affirmatively made out. It follows that the order appealed frpm should be reversed, and the motion to vacate the referee’s report should be granted, with costs to plaintiff of the general and special terms.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.Y.S. 467, 67 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 405, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 897, 60 Hun 405, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velie-v-titus-nysupct-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack