Billings v. Jane
New York Supreme Court
The plaintiff declared on a promissory note of which the following is a copy: “ For value received I promise to pay to the order of F. U. Fenno one hundred and fifty dollars with interest, by the first day of December next. Dated May 9, 1845.” The complaint alledged that F. U. Fenno sold and delivered said note to the plaintiff before it was due, for a full and valuable consideration.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff declared on a promissory note of which the following is a copy: “ For value received I promise to pay to the order of F. U. Fenno one hundred and fifty dollars with interest, by the first day of December next. Dated May 9, 1845.” The complaint alledged that F. U. Fenno sold and delivered said note to the plaintiff before it was due, for a full and valuable consideration. The defendant demurred to the complaint, upon the ground that Fenno, to whose order the note was made payable, did not indorse it to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff could not therefore maintain this action…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Shankland, J.
We are of opinion the demurrer can not be sustained, for the reason that although by the commercial law such paper is negotiable, and negotiated by indorsement only, yet it has been holden, before the code, that the property in the note passes by actual delivery, and that the owner may sue, in the name of the payee, for his own benefit. (10 B. & C. 122. Chit. on Bills, 204. 13 Mass. Rep. 305.)
The code, by the 111th section, has now made it proper, and indeed necessary, to sue in the name of the actual owner, or real party in interest. Here the plaintiff is the actual…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Boeka v. NuellaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859
- Edwards v. WagnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Moore v. MillerOregon Supreme Court · 1877
- First Nat. Bank of Council Bluffs v. MooreCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1905