Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Errors of the State of Connecticut in the Years 1802-[1813] Volume 5

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Errors of the State of Connecticut in the Years 1802-[1813] Volume 5

List price: US$29.69

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1899 edition. Excerpt: ...of the note by the Townsends. The contract with them, was merely a contract of indemnity, and they could not resort to the defendants, until they had, in fact, paid the note. But besides, the defendants were indebted to Bartsch for the amount of the goods purchased. Tooke v. Hollingworth, 5 Tenn Rep. 215; Scott v. Surman, Willes' Rep. 400; Em partc DmnaS, 1 Atk. 232; 2 Selw. N. P. 829, 830. It is said, that Bartsch could not recover the value of the goods sold, because he received the note of E. & A. Townsend. This principle is not supported by the authorities on this subject. So far from this, is it, that the contrary principle is fully established. Did Bartsch, by taking the note, thereby give up his claim on the defendants? The cases cited above, show that this cannot be so. A note was taken in the case reported in Willes. The rule on this subject, is this: If A. purchase goods, and give a bill for the amount of the purchase money, it is not payment; but if the bill has time to run, no suit can be brought for the original demand, until the time has expired. Then the original cause of action is revived. The giving of a note, is no discharge of the claim for the price of the goods. Stedman v. Gooch, 1 Esp. Rep. 5; Hebden v. Hartsink et al., 4 id. 46; Brooke et al. v. Thite, 1 New. Rep. 330; 8 Johns. Rep. 389. But further, the defendants claim the right to set off the debt due to Elnathan Atwater against the debt supposed to be due E. & A. Townsend. The court is authorized to make every equitable allowance in a suit like the present. The court, in this respect, is vested with the powers of a court of chancery. E. & A. Townsend are indebted to Elnathan Atwater, to a greater amount than the debt due to Bartsch. Elnathan Atwater...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 214 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 11mm | 390g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236522451
  • 9781236522450