Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
James M. Smith et al., Respondents, v. Wilson G. Fox, impleaded, etc., Appellant, 1872 — 48 N.Y. 674 · caselaw · US
General
James M. Smith et al., Respondents, v. Wilson G. Fox, impleaded, etc., Appellant
48 N.Y. 674·New York Commission of Appeals·1872·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
James M. Smith et al., Respondents, v. Wilson G. Fox, impleaded, etc., Appellant.
(Argued September 28, 1871;
decided January term, 1872.)
Action upon a promissory note, dated March 3d, 1866, payable sixty days from date, executed by defendants and discounted by one Edward S. Rich, an individual banker. Plaintiffs claimed title by virtue of an assignment for the benefit of creditors, executed by Rich, April 12,1866. At the time Fox had a balance to his credit on deposit account with Rich to more than the amount of the note. Defendants asked to have sufficient of the account to balance the note set off against it. This the court refused. Held, error, on authority, of the case of Smith v. Felton 43 FT. Y., 419).
Sarmiel Hand for the appellants.
John Ganson for the respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Gteay, C., reads for reversal.
All concur.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event.