Case Name: Stow against Wadley
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1811-05
Citations: 8 Johns. 124
Docket Number: 
Parties: Stow against Wadley.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 124–125

Head Matter:
Stow against Wadley.
It was agreed B. that B. promissoryUnoie tain sum, which duealleto d him! made6 oi™a‘S tiement of ac•counts between them a few years before, but which mistake was denied by B.9 and that be61 o d ge rH n° the hamis^d and days, should ex. •hibit proof to C, from which" O. should think B. ought not topay otherwise0 ^it shonid belong to .2., and li. insisted on prodncing parol proof to c., which he refused to admit. •in a suit against it was hew that t'as not Y”‘'del h'is^default C'8 a^'inst' li was a conililion precedent to tlie validity. peratiun” o^the" ll0te"
THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, dated \7tb. June, 1808, by which the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff 111 dollars and 53 cents, m one year from the date.
I1 appeared that the plaintiff, at the time the note was given, declared to the defendant, that there had been a mistake in the settlement of accounts between them, about four years before, of 84 dollars, in favour of the J „ defendant. The defendant denied that there had been . , . , . - . any mistake; but it was agreed between the parties, that the defendant should give a note to the plaintiff for the ¿0parg anc[ interest, which should be lodged in the hands of A. Ten Eyck, with directions, that if the defend-J 7 ant should, within sixty days, exhibit to Ten Euck, evi1 , , V . dence,-by which he should think the defendant ought not. t° pay the note, that then the note should be delivered t0 t^le defendant, otherwise it was to belong to the plaintiff. The defendant accordingly made the note, on . . which the action was brought, which was placed in the , hands of Ten Eyck, with the agreement of the parties, , , . , , r , , , and he gave notice to the defendant to produce the evidence. The defendant, within the 60 days, insisted on S'v™8" par°l evidence, which Ten Eyck conceiving himseif not authorized to admit, returned the papers to the Plaintiff» without doing any thing further in the businCSS.
. , . , „ , At the trial of the cause, at the circuit, m Lezvts county, in June, 1810, the jury, under the direction of the judge, found a verdict for the plaintiff, for 128 dollars and 14 cents.
A motion was made to set aside the verdict, and for a . ! . i pew trial, which was submitted to the court without argument.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The case shows that there was no consideration fo*r the note. Ten Eyck declined to act, and would not receive the parol evidence that the defendant offered. The defendant was not in default, and his default, or a decision of Ten Eyck against him, was a condition precedent to the validity and binding,operation of the note. The verdict ought to be set aside, and a new trial awarded, with costs, to abide the event.