Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

15 Johns. 503

Rice v. Peet

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1818

New York Supreme Court · decided 1818-10-15

IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. The defendant in error brought an action in the court below against the plaintiff in error, and declared against him in an action for money had and received, on a certain promissory note given by David Franklin to the plaintiff below, and upon which the defendant below had received the money; and also alleging that the note was obtained from him, the plaintiff below, by management, when he was insane and of unsound mind.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1818-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 1913

11 state decisions

3018181820183018401850186018701880189019001910decided

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.

¶1The judgment must be affirmed. Admitting the pendency of another suit by the same plaintiff against the same defendant to have been duly proved, it formed no objection to this action ; it was for a distinct matter, and the plaintiff had a right to bring separate suits. Nov was there any legal objection to the plaintiff’s showing that this note ' was obtained from him at a time when he was incapable of making any contract; and the jury have considered that fact as made out by proof. But there is another ground on which the plaintiff had good right to recover the money received by the defendant on that note. It was received by the defendant without consideration; the contract for the exchange of farms was void by the statute of frauds, being by paroi only. The judgment must, accordingly, be affirmed.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/15/johns/503 · .json · Public domain