Warren v. Mains
7 Johns. 476
Opinion
It was competent to the plaintiff to show, that before the day of payment, the defendant had agreed to accept bank bills, as cash, and had dispensed with the necessity of a tender in gold and silver. The [477]*477tender in bank bills was, consequently, good at the day, by reason of the previous waiver. The motion to set ~x~id~ the verdict ~`uust be denied.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Warren v. Mains, 7 Johns. 476 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).
7 Johns. 476 (Warren v. Mains) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Johnston v. Eichelberger
13 Fla. 230 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1869)
Ratcliff v. Baird
14 Tex. 43 (Texas Supreme Court, 1855)
Spann v. Baltzell
1 Fla. 301 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1847)
Sargent v. Graham
5 N.H. 440 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1831)
Moody v. Mahurin
4 N.H. 296 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1828)