Hay vs. Hide

Hay vs. Hide. Rutland February, 1814. A due bill* in the following words, Due F. H. eighty dollars oh demand,” will eupport, an action of indebitatus assumpsit for money lent, THIS was an action of assumpsit. / The declaration contained two counts; one on a promissory note, and one for money lent. Plea — the general issue. Mallary for the plaintiff, in support.of the action offered in evidence, a note or due bill in the words and figures following. “ Due to Francis Hay eighty dollars on demand, 19th June, 1819” A. W. HIDE. Langdon for the defendant contended that the evidence offered, would not support either count, in the declaration. ■ Though the due bill may be considered as evidence of a debt, yet it does not appear that it arose by way of loan. And it is not a promissory note, it contains no words of promise, and is not expressed to be for value received; no action, therefore, can be maintained upon it, without proof of a consideration. [MAJORITY — By the Court.] By the Court. — The due bill is an acknowledgment of so much táioney of the plaintiff’s, in the hands of the defendant, for which the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff; and it may well be presumed to be for a loan. It is an acknowledgement under the hand of the defendant, and is sufficient to raise the implied promise in the second count, and might have supported a third count, on an insimul computassent. Verdict for the plaintiff. See the case Fisher v. Leslie. 1 Esp. Cases, 426. A slip ef paper, signed by the defendant, in the following letters and words. “ 1 O U eight guineas, was admitted in support of a declaration, containing a count for money lent, and the common counts, by L, KENYON.”