Stow v. Wadley , 8 Johns. 124 ( 1811 )

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.