Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Pin. 643

Husbrook v. Wilder

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1846

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1846-07-15

Wilder brought an action of assumpsit in the' Rock county district court on a promissory note of which the following is a copy: “ June 24,1831. “For value received, I promise to pay Cook Husbrook, or bearer, $100, as witness my hand. “MAHLON HUSBROOK.” “Indorsed. “ August 28, 1832, received on th® within $35.” The declaration contained a count on the note, and the common counts and a copy of note.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1922

1 state decisions

Relies on Gaylord v. Van Loan · Russell v. Whipple · Mitchell v. Culver

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1846-07-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Miller, J.

¶1The defendant in error sued the plaintiff in error in assumpsit, and declared specially upon the note in suit, with the common counts, and a copy of said note attached. The note was payable for value received, without the mention of any time. The only question raised at the trial was, whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest from the date of the note. The court decided in favor of the plaintiff.

¶2A promissory note is perfect without date or time of payment. Mitchell v. Culver, 7 Cow. 336. This note is an acknowledgment of an existing debt, payable immediately, and bears interest from its date. Francis v. Castleman, 4 Bibb, 282; Collier v. Gray, 1 Overt. 110; Russell v. Whipple, 2 Cow. 536; 15 Wend. 308. The judgment of the district court must be affirmed.

/1/pin/643 · .json · Public domain