Thomas v. Roosa

Decided February 15, 1811

New York Supreme Court · decided 1811-02-15

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained two counts on two several promissory notes, The second count was on a note by which the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff “ in a good horse, to be worth, with saddle and bridle, eighty dollars, and goods out of the store amounting to twenty dollars,” &c., by ° v reason whereof, and by force of the statute in such case lnacie and provided, “ the defendant became liable to pay, &c. and being so liable, &c.…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1811-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 1890

5 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 note in the second count was payable in chattels, and so was not a promissory note under the statute, but the reference to the statute may be rejected as surplusage, and is good after verdict. Nor was any request requisite to be specially averred and proved, for a request was not parcel of the contract. The contract is sufficiently set forth, and was a valid one. Any defect or inaccuracy in assigning the breach is aided after verdict, for the court will intend that damages could not" have been given, if a good breach had not been shown. (2 Jones, 125. Anon. Skinner, 344. Knight v. Keech) There is no ground for the motion in arrest of judgment, and it must be denied.

¶2Motion denied.