Willard v. Andrews
This text of 4 How. Pr. 65 (Willard v. Andrews) 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.
Opinion
The defendant’s answer was false. He does not now pretend that he did not give the note; nor does the answer set up the pretext that the suit was brought for the benefit of Wilson and Calk-ins, the payees and endorsers. The note having been transferred to the plaintiff before it was due, could not have been impeached by the defendant Andrews, on the ground of a want of consideration. It is quite clear that the defence was merely for delay and without the shadow [66]*66of any legal excuse. It was therefore “ unfairly and unreasonably conducted,” within the meaning of the code, § 308, as it unjustly threw the plaintiff over a circuit. I shall therefore direct that an allowance of ten per cent, on the recovery be made to the plaintiff and be inserted in the record by the clerk.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 How. Pr. 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willard-v-andrews-nysupct-1849.