Benton v. Mastin

Decided March 15, 1869

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1869-03-15

On the first day of July, 1857, the plaintiff bought a draft of the defendant, who was a hanker at Olean, N. Y., drawn by the latter on Griggs & Lathrop, 35 Wall street, New York, payable at sight to… Held: when the case was before it on appeal from a former trial, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover upon the draft, and granted a new trial.

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Dunnage”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1869-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 1947

1 district · 7 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 →

Per Curiam.

¶1The true construction, in view of the extrinsic facts of the case, of the word “ duplicate,” written across the draft in suit, is that the draft was made as a substitute for, and to take the place of the original, and no new liability of the defendant was created thereby.

¶2The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial had.

Grover, J.,

¶3read an opinion discussing the admissibility of the parol evidence offered by the defendant as to the agreement between the parties, at the time the duplicate draft was given, and came to the conclusion that it was improperly excluded. Woodruff and Mason, JJ., read opinions coming to the opposite conclusion upon that question, but it was not passed upon by the court.

¶4' Woodruff and Mason, JJ., were for affirmance,

¶5Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.