Whitney v. Crosby

New York Supreme Court

Whitney v. Crosby

3 Cai. Cas. 89, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 442

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1805

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 Cai. Cas. 89 (Whitney v. Crosby) 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

Whitney v. Crosby, 3 Cai. Cas. 89, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 442 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1805).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

The first count is good, because certain to a common intent. When a day or month is,mentioned as antecedent, or subsequent to a contract, and the precise day or month is not specified, it means the time nearest to the date of the contract. As the money here, was payable immediately, with interest from the 1st of June, it must mean the preceding 1 st of June. It can have no other interpretation. A further reason why the plaintiff must have judgment is, the demurrer is to the whole declaration, and the second count is clearly good.

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

Per curiam.

The first count is good, because certain to a common intent. When a day or month is,mentioned as antecedent, or subsequent to a contract, and the precise day or month is not specified, it means the time nearest to the date of the contract. As the money here, was payable immediately, with interest from the 1st of June, it must mean the preceding 1 st of June. It can have no other interpretation. A further reason why the plaintiff must have judgment is, the demurrer is to the whole declaration, and the second count is clearly good.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Cai. Cas. 89, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitney-v-crosby-nysupct-1805.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack