Case Name: Stack v. Weatherwax
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-05-27
Citations: 5 N.Y.S. 510
Docket Number: 
Parties: Stack v. Weatherwax.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 5
Pages: 510–511

Head Matter:
Stack v. Weatherwax.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.
May 27, 1889.)
Contracts—Validity—Consideration.
Where it appears that, contemporaneously with the execution by defendant of the note sued on, plaintiff executed and delivered to defendant a satisfaction of a judgment which he had against defendant’s son-in-law, a sufficient consideration for the note is shown.
Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county.
Action by Edward Stack against Charles P. Weatherwax on a promissory note executed by defendant, and payable to plaintiff. It appeared that plaintiff had recovered a judgment for $103 against one Van Loon, defendant’s son-in-law, and that at the time defendant executed the note plaintiff executed a satisfaction of his judgment against Van Loon. Plaintiff’s testimony was to the effect that he had tried to collect the judgment by execution; that defendant came to him and stated that if he would satisfy the judgment against his son-in-law, Van Loon, he would give plaintiff bis note, payable in six months, for $80, in payment of the judgment; that they went to the law-office of Mr. Reynolds, at Amsterdam, who, at the request of the parties, drew the note in suit, and a satisfaction of the Van Loon judgment; that defendant then signed the note, delivered it to plaintiff, and plaintiff signed and acknowledged the satisfaction of the judgment and delivered it to defendant. Defendant testified that he gave the note to procure the release of certain property of Van Loon’s wife, which plaintiff had seized under execution. A ver diet was directed for plaintiff, and defendant appeals from a judgment entered thereon.
Argued before Learned, P. J., and Landon and Ingalls, J J.
Edward J. Maxwell, for appellant. Louis H. Reynolds, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
There was no sufficient evidence of duress to go to the jury. The defense of want of consideration was not sustained. Contemporarily with the execution of the note, the plaintiff executed, acknowledged, and left for the defendant a satisfaction piece of the judgment recovered by the plaintiff against Van Loon. Whether Van Loon was solvent or not at that time, this was a consideration, if the parties so agreed, for the defendant's note. Judgment affirmed, with costs