Cardwell v. Hicks
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action upon a promissory note for $517.54, dated 30th March, 1857, payable in six months. The defense was fraud in obtaining the note and putting it in circulation. The case was tried before Justice Welles, May 13, 1861. The defendant (who is the maker of the note) held the affirmative, and introduced evidence tending to prove the fraud, and rested.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action upon a promissory note for $517.54, dated 30th March, 1857, payable in six months. The defense was fraud in obtaining the note and putting it in circulation. The case was tried before Justice Welles, May 13, 1861. The defendant (who is the maker of the note) held the affirmative, and introduced evidence tending to prove the fraud, and rested. The plaintiff then proceeded, and introduced evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was ignorant of the fraud, and paid value for the note. And it appeared from the plaintiff’s testimony that he received the note from 0. Wirgman,…
1DissentIngraham, P. J.
(dissenting.) The question in this case is whether a person who takes a note that has been diverted from the use for which it was made, and pays for it partly in cash and partly by giving up the note of the person who surrendered it, is a bona fide holder for value.
In Youngs v. Lee, (2 Kernan, 551,) the court of appeals hold that a party who receives accommodation paper and surrenders the note of the party from whom it is received, before such note is due, is a bona fide holder for value. And in Stettheimer v. Meyer, (33 Barb. 215,) the Monroe general term hold that where a note is so…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Farrington v. Frankfort BankNew York Supreme Court · 1857
- Stettheimer v. MeyerNew York Supreme Court · 1860