Leonard v. Mason

Decided October 15, 1828

New York Supreme Court · decided 1828-10-15

Error from the Onondaga common pleas. A. Leonard sued Mason-in a justice’s court, on an order for the payment of money accepted by Mason. The plaintiff held a promissory note against one N. Leonard for $34,48, underneath which was written an order or bill of exchange, in these words : “ Levi Mason, Esq., please pay the above note, and hold it against me in our settlement.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1828-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 1897

1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

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 →

¶1By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

¶2The only- question is, whether the order which the defendant accepted, is a good bill of exchange: if so, a parol acceptance is good. It is supposed that this case depends on the same principles as the case of Cook v. Satterlee & Satterlee, (6 Cowen, 108.) The rule there recognized is, that a bill of exchange must be for the payment of money, and nothing else. In that case, the drawees were required to pay a certain sum of money, and take up a note given by the drawer to a third person. Here it is to pay & note, which is referred to merely to ascertain the amount ; and the retaining the note as a voucher, is no more the performance of another act beside the payment of the money, than the retaining the order itself for the same purpose.

¶3The court erred. The judgment must be reversed, and a venire de novo is awarded to Onondaga common pleas.