TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Waring v. Yates

Waring against Yates, gentleman, one of the attorneys, &c.

Waring v. Yates, 10 Johns. 119 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1813)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
January 15, 1813
Citations
10 Johns. 119
Cited by 6
Headnotes
Where a dec laration is eutitled general¿ingtei-m^nd the promise or cause of action is laid on qUe„^ "it*8*» yafjí °mJj.rer" There should memorandum’ ln •s°el1 case, entitling the declaration of the day on which it is - filed.
Summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The bill against the de_ _ _ _ - . ni i • i • fendanty who was an attorney of this court, was hied m vacation, as of the first Monday of August term, 1832, and stated the promise or assumption of the defendant, to be on the 1st September, 1812. * The defendant pleaded, that on the second day of September, 1812, he delivered to the plaintiff a bank check, which had been paid, and which the plaintiff accepted and received in full satisfaction, &c. The plaintiff replied that the defendant did not deliver to the plaintiff the check, &c. in full satisfaction and discharge, &c. The defendant demurred to the replication, and the plaintiff joined in demurrer.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The second objection is fatal. The declaration is bad on general demurrer. * It was so decided in Cheetham v. Lewis. (3 Johns. Rep. 42.) There should have been a special memorandum in this case, entitling the declaration of the day on which it was filed, and subsequent to the time when the cause of action accrued. The defendant is entitled to judgment, but he has leave to withdraw the demurrer, and the plaintiff may amend on payment of costs.

Judgment for the defendant 1 Tida's Pr. 767. Chitty's Pl. 259. 263, 264, 265.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →
1828–1829: 11840–1841: 11848–1849: 11852–1853: 11866–1867: 11896–1897: 118282026peak 1828 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Carruth v. Church6 Barb. 504 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1849)
  2. Tebbetts & Pearce v. Dowd23 Wend. 379 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1840)
  3. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. v. McWhirter73 F. 444 (9th Cir. 1896)
  4. Maynard v. Talcott11 Barb. 569 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1852)
  5. Hogan v. Cuyler8 Cow. 203 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1828)
  6. Updike v. Broeck32 N.J.L. 105 (1866)

Most recent

  1. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. v. McWhirter73 F. 444 (9th Cir. 1896)
  2. Updike v. Broeck32 N.J.L. 105 (1866)
  3. Maynard v. Talcott11 Barb. 569 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1852)
  4. Carruth v. Church6 Barb. 504 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1849)
  5. Tebbetts & Pearce v. Dowd23 Wend. 379 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1840)
  6. Hogan v. Cuyler8 Cow. 203 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1828)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list