Putnam v. Lewis

Oct 15, 1811
Reporters:
Per Curiam.

Giving the note was no payment of the book debt. It could ‍‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍only suspend the right of action, during the period allowed for payment of the note. (Herring v. Sawyer, January term, 1802, MS.) The time of payment in the note ‍‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍does not appear, and it was the business of the defendant to have shown it, if he relied upon that point, as a defence. As it. ‍‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍is, we are to presume the note was due when the writ was issued in August, 1810. The receipt did not preclude the plaintiff from ‍‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍showing* the facts and circumstances under which it was given. This is a well settled point in this court. The recovery was accordingly correct, and ‍‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍the account being liquidated and agreed to, it of course carried interest.

Motion denied.