Bank of Utica v. Bender
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, tried at- the Oneida circuit in October, 1838, before the Hon. Philo Gridley, one of the circuit judges. The action was against the defendant as endorser of a bill of exchange for §1000, dated at Chittenango, February 27th, 1838, drawn by Henry H. Cobb, on Sanford Cobb of Albany, and payable to the order of the defendant, at the Commercial Bank of Albany, four months after date.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, tried at- the Oneida circuit in October, 1838, before the Hon. Philo Gridley, one of the circuit judges. The action was against the defendant as endorser of a bill of exchange for §1000, dated at Chittenango, February 27th, 1838, drawn by Henry H. Cobb, on Sanford Cobb of Albany, and payable to the order of the defendant, at the Commercial Bank of Albany, four months after date. The defendant was an accommodation endorser, and the draft was discounted by the plaintiffs .for the benefit of the drawer. Under the defendant’s name as endorser, was written…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Bronson, J.
When the facts are all ascertained, what is reasonable diligence is a question of law. “ This.results,” said Spencer, J. in Bryden v. Bryden, 11 Johns. R. 187, “ from the necessity of having some fixed legal standard, by which men may not only know the law, but be protected by it.” Bayley on Bills, 142, 144, and notes. The judge was not requested to submit the question of due diligence to the jury; but had it been otherwise, he was right in treating it as a question of law, there being no dispute about the facts.
Was there reasonable diligence in endeavoring to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bank of Utica v. DavidsonNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Catskill Bank v. StallNew York Supreme Court · 1836
3Cited by25 opinions
- Rhett v. PoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1844
- Belden v. LambSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1846
- Barger v. HealySupreme Court of Missouri · 1918
- Bell v. Hagerstown BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1848
- Branch of the Bank of the State at Decatur v. PeirceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.