Dale v. Gear
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit by the indorsee of a negotiable note against an indorser; brought to the Court of Common Pleas for New Haven county. The case came before this court for advice, on demurrer to the plea, at the February Term, 1871, and is reported 88 Conn., 15. It came again before this court at the present term, by reservation for advice, on demurrer to two additional pleas.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit by the indorsee of a negotiable note against an indorser; brought to the Court of Common Pleas for New Haven county. The case came before this court for advice, on demurrer to the plea, at the February Term, 1871, and is reported 88 Conn., 15. It came again before this court at the present term, by reservation for advice, on demurrer to two additional pleas. The first plea was as follows :— The defendant, by leave of the court for that purpose first had and obtained, for further plea in this behalf defends, pleads and says, that the said plaintiff ought not to have and maintain his…
1Opinion of the CourtButleR, C. J.
This case comes up again on a demurrer to two additional pleas. We think the first of the new pieas sufficient, but the second insufficient.
The first sets forth an agreement between the parties, that if the defendant would sell a certain machine to a certain man and take his note for it, he, the plaintiff, would purchase the note at an agreed discount on the credit of the maker alone; that the sale was made and the note taken pursuant to the agreement, and that it became the duty of the plaintiff to take and pay for the note indorsed by the defendant, “without recourse.” It further sets forth…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Schindler v. MuhlheiserSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1877
- Giltner v. QuirkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Martin v. ColeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1876
- Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Dulaney v. BurkeIdaho Supreme Court · 1890