Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Johns. 321

Jerome v. Whitney

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1811

New York Supreme Court · decided 1811-02-15

<p>a note to pay-'is :?ot a note. in the statute, and thc cousideration, must be stated and shown. But the words, “ value snoífa'note, ’is {¡Acong^ten"^ east 0,1 the defendant, the burden of proving that consUleration.n° But if the plaintiff, in his declaration on suelva note, instead of stating generally that it was given for value received,-sets forth specially -in whatthe value received consisted, he is bound to prove the particular value according to the averment, and the general acknowledgment, of value in the note is not sufficient to support the declaration.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1811-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 1929

1 district · 15 state decisions

40181118201830184018501860187018801890190019101920decided

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.

¶1This is not a promissory note under the statute, for it is payable in “ neat cattle,” and it therefore required a consideration to be stated, either by showing the acknowledgment of one upon the face of the note, or otherwise by particularly averring it, as in a declaration upon a special agreement. The note is expressed to be given for value received, and the question is, whether that is not evidence, prima facie, of a consideration. Whatever might have been the true import of the decision in Lansing v. M'Killip, (3 Caines, 286.) in respect to this question, is not now very material, for since the case of Jackson v. Alexander, (3 Johns. Rep. 484.) the court cannot consistently say, that the acknowledgment of value received is not evidence of consideration in a note, as well as in a deed. It is sufficient to cast upon the defendant the burden of proving that there was no consideration. This rule is rea- . sonable and convenient. Notes payable in specific chattels are very common, and to compel the plaintiffs, in every instance, notwithstanding the note is expressed to *324be for value received, to prove the true aM id~entical$ consideration at large, is imposing upon hIm a• great and unnec~ssary hardship. The confession bf value bythe maker clf the note ought to be sufficient in the first in' stance.

¶2Had the plaintiff in this ease declared upon the note,stating it to have been given for value received, and had not set forth a special and" particular consideration, the production and proof of the note would have been sufficient to have put the defendant upon his- defence.- But having specified in what that value consisted; he was-bound to prove the averment as laid. A particular" value charged was materially different from-value in general; and so it was lately held, in England, in Knill v. Williams, (10 East, 431.) On this ground the verdict must be set aside for misdirection, and a new trial awarded, with costs to abide the event; but the plaintiff is at liberty to amend his declaration, by striking out- the special consideration set forth.

¶3New trial granted-.

/7/johns/321 · .json · Public domain