Carr v. . Lewis
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal, from the Supreme Court. The defendant ’cade hi? promissory note payable to Wilson & Calkins at Albany The payees procured Both & Co. to become second indorsers of it for .their accommodation, and it was discounted by a Troy bank. The note being unpaid at maturity, the indorsers were duly charged, and Both & Co. took up the note. After this the defendant paid the amount into the hands of Wilson & Calkins.
Read the full summary
Appeal, from the Supreme Court. The defendant ’cade hi? promissory note payable to Wilson & Calkins at Albany The payees procured Both & Co. to become second indorsers of it for .their accommodation, and it was discounted by a Troy bank. The note being unpaid at maturity, the indorsers were duly charged, and Both & Co. took up the note. After this the defendant paid the amount into the hands of Wilson & Calkins. They did not pay it over to Both & Co., but the latter some time afterward, with notice of all the facts, took the notes of Calkins & Wilson, maturing at different dates in the…
1Opinion of the Court
Johnson, Ch. J.
When the note in suit became due it was the duty of the defendant to pay it to the holders, and as this duty was not performed, both the maker and the indorsers (they having been duly charged as indorsers) were liable absolutely to the holders. This being the condition of the parties the maker gave the amount of the note to the payees, who had no authority from the holders to receive the money; and the holders having, after knowledge of this fact, taken from the payees a note on time for their indebtedness, including the amount of the note in suit, the maker now insists that he…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Gosling v. GriffinTennessee Supreme Court · 1875
- First National Bank v. HaussAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
- Exchange Nat. Bank v. JohnsonUnited States Circuit Court · 1887
- Mundet Cork Corp. v. GruppAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1935