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.
General
Aaron J. Kellogg, v. Fordyce Cowing, and The Commercial Bank of Albany, v. Fordyce Cowing
33 N.Y. 408·New York Court of Appeals·1865·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
Aaron J. Kellogg, v. Fordyce Cowing, and The Commercial Bank of Albany, v. Fordyce Cowing.
Judgment, by confession had been entered in the first above entitled cause upon the following statement of facts: “ This confession of judgment is for a debt justly to become due from me to the above plaintiff (Aaron J. Kellogg), on or about the 15th day of December, 1859, and the following are the facts upon which said indebtedness arises. The plaintiff had been in the employ of the defendant for several years upon a salary. From year to year defendant had settled with plaintiff, allowing him interest upon such amount or amounts as remained unpaid. That on the 15th day of December, 1857, the plaintiff and defendant settled, and there was then due to the plaintiff four thousand and three hundred dollars, for which sum defendant then gave his note payable in two years with interest; that the amount of said note with interest, on the 15th day of December, 1859, will be the sum of four thousand nine hundred and two dollars; and no payments have been made on the said note, or the interest therepn.” This statement was duly verified. The assignee of the plaintiff in the second above entitled actions, at Special Term, moved to set aside the judgment on the ground of the insufficiency of the statement under the requirements of the second clause of section 383 of the Code, which motion was granted; but on appeal to the General Term, the order setting aside the judgment was reversed, and an appeal was taken to this court.
[MAJORITY]
Held, that the foregoing statement embraces substantially all the facts essential to sustain the judgment, and "that the judgment of the General Term be affirmed.