Maas v. . Chatfield
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made May 20, 1881, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. • This action was brought upon a note for $2,820, executed by defendant dated ¡November 20,18Y8, payable four months after date to the order of Eosenbach & Co., and indorsed by them to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made May 20, 1881, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. • This action was brought upon a note for $2,820, executed by defendant dated ¡November 20,18Y8, payable four months after date to the order of Eosenbach & Co., and indorsed by them to the plaintiff. The answer alleged, upon information and belief, that the note was given for the accommodation of S. Eosenbach & Go., upon their…
1Opinion of the CourtDanforth, J.
Even if the contract between the defendant and Bosenbach & Co. involved nothing more than promises by one to the other, the consideration was sufficient and the engagement of either .must be enforced in favor of any one to whom it has been transferred, although -at a discount exceeding the legal rate of interest. At the close of the evidence the plaintiff may well have assumed the fact to be as above suggested, and that this principle was to be applied. He a sked the court to direct a verdict in his favor, and the request should have been granted.
It was proven that the defendant was a leather…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dowe v. SchuttNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Davis v. . McCreadyNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
3Cited by4 opinions
- Moyses v. BellWashington Supreme Court · 1911
- Producers' Nat. Bank v. ElrodSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
- West v. BaniganAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Union Foundry & Pullman Car Wheel Works v. New York Lumber Drying Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1887