Washington & Warren Bank v. Farmers' Bank

New York Court of Chancery

Washington & Warren Bank v. Farmers' Bank

4 Johns. Ch. 62, 1819 N.Y. LEXIS 158, 1819 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 19

New York Court of Chancery·Decided July 12, 1819·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Motion for an injunction denied : 1. The agreement with Barker had no consideration, to warrant the extraordinary powers of this Court. 2. The ten days [65] have elapsed since the acceptances charged were made, and payment is not offered or averred. If the right of the defendants to demand payment was suspended by the promise of a third person, it ceases when that person is in default. The plaintiffs, as his assignees, pray that the defendants may not demand payment. No request could be more unreasonable. The agreement with Barker did not discharge the plaintiffs from their obligation to pay their notes. At most, it only suspended the right of demand, for ten days.

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

Per Curiam.

Motion for an injunction denied : 1. The agreement with Barker had no consideration, to warrant the extraordinary powers of this Court. 2. The ten days [65] have elapsed since the acceptances charged were made, and payment is not offered or averred. If the right of the defendants to demand payment was suspended by the promise of a third person, it ceases when that person is in default. The plaintiffs, as his assignees, pray that the defendants may not demand payment. No request could be more unreasonable. The agreement with Barker did not discharge the plaintiffs from their obligation to pay their notes. At most, it only suspended the right of demand, for ten days.

Washington & Warren Bank v. Farmers' Bank, 4 Johns. Ch. 62, 1819 N.Y. LEXIS 158, 1819 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 19 (N.Y. 1819).

Pincite

4 Johns. Ch. 62 (Washington & Warren Bank v. Farmers' Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.