Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Johns. 319

Hendricks v. Judah

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1806

New York Supreme Court · decided 1806-05-15

THIS was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, . given by the defendants in England, to one M. G. Waage, resident there, for £ 223 sterling, dated 28th September, , 1803, payable to his order, on demand. The note was in- dorsed to one Thomas Holmes, and by him to the plaintiff.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1806-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1886

4 state decisions

20180618101820183018401850186018701880decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per curiam.

¶1By the testimony of the defendants, it appears that the note had been bonajide transferred to a third person, to whom it belonged, and the suit is brought by the trustee of such third person. The note was payable on demand, and the suit brought within a year, so that it must have been transferred within that time. It may have been indorsed soon after its date, and as the transaction was in England, we may intend that to be the case, as no evidence to the contrary has been offered. The judge, therefore, was right in rejecting the proof offered by the defendants, as to a set-off against the demand of the original payee, until it had been proved that the note had been transferred for a fraudulent purpose, or at a later period at least, than was to be presumed from the facts which appeared.

¶2Rule refused.

/1/johns/319 · .json · Public domain