In Smith v. Holland it was held that where a promissory note also embodies a receipt, the receipt is open to explanation the same as if it were a separate instrument.
Summary of this case from Komp v. RaymondArgued May 26, 1874
Decided September term, 1874
F.G. Salmon for the appellants.
Samuel Hand for the respondents.
GRAY and EARL, CC., read for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
In Smith v. Holland it was held that where a promissory note also embodies a receipt, the receipt is open to explanation the same as if it were a separate instrument.
Summary of this case from Komp v. RaymondFull title:ISAAC E. SMITH et al., Respondents, v . NELSON HOLLAND et al., Appellants
Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Date published: Sep 1, 1874
Hence, it must be regarded as a receipt only and not as a contract. That such a receipt, being an informal…
Goodwin v. Goodwin2 Pars. Con. 555. A writing which partakes of the nature both of a contract and a receipt may be contradicted…