Legal Opinion

Far Rockaway Bank v. . Norton

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 21, 1906PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 8, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The nature of the action and the facts, so far, as material, are stated in the opinion. The referee comm lifted reversible error in rejecting competent evidence, showing that the respondent had ample money of the maker of the note on deposit to pay the note in suit.

Read the full summary

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 8, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The nature of the action and the facts, so far, as material, are stated in the opinion. The referee comm lifted reversible error in rejecting competent evidence, showing that the respondent had ample money of the maker of the note on deposit to pay the note in suit. (Pitts v. Congdon, 2 N. Y. 352; Bacon v. Burnham, 37 N. Y. 614; Smith v. Weston, 159 N. Y. 194; N. E. Bank v. Silliman,…

1Opinion of the Court

Cullen, Ch. J.

The action is brought on a promissory note made by one Smith to the plaintiff, which the defendant indorsed prior to its delivery to the payee. But two questions are presented on this appeal.

First. It is alleged the referee committed error in excluding evidence offered by the defendant to show that Smith, the maker, had, some time subsequent to the maturity of the note, a sufficient deposit in the plaintiff bank to pay it, which the plaintiff failed to appropriate for that purpose. The case of National Bank of Newburgh v. Smith (66 N. Y. 271) is a conclusive authority to the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Coulter v. . RichmondNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  2. Bacon v. . BurnhamNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
  3. National Bank of Newburgh v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1876

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Haddock, Blanchard Co. v. . HaddockNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
  2. Case v. McKinnisOregon Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Overland Auto Co. v. WintersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1919
  4. Thompson v. CurryWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Walker v. DunhamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API