¶1There was no sufficient evidence of duress to go to the jury. The defense of want of consideration was not sustained. Contemporarily with the execution of the note, the plaintiff executed, acknowledged, and left for the defendant a satisfaction piece of the judgment recovered by the plaintiff against Van Loon. Whether Van Loon was solvent or not at that time, this was a consideration, if the parties so agreed, for the defendant’s note. Judgment affirmed, with costs
5 N.Y.S. 510
Stack v. Weatherwax
Decided May 27, 1889
New York Supreme Court · decided 1889-05-27
Action by Edward Stack against Charles P. Weatherwax on a promissory note executed by defendant, and payable to plaintiff. It appeared that plaintiff had recovered a judgment for $103 against one Van Loon, defendant’s son-in-law, and that at the time defendant executed the note plaintiff executed a satisfaction of his judgment against Van Loon.
Decided 1889-05-27