Legal Opinion

President, Directors & Co. of the Bank Utica v. Hillard

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1825PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Assumpsit on a promissory note, by thebank as endorsee, against the defendant as endorser. The note was made by one Samuel Jones, dated August 24th, 1821, for 2000 dollars, payable to the defendant, or order, at the Utica Bank, ninety days after date, and discounted by the plaintiffs. The cause was tried at the Oneida Circuit, October 4th, 1824, before Betts, C. Judge.

Read the full summary

Assumpsit on a promissory note, by thebank as endorsee, against the defendant as endorser. The note was made by one Samuel Jones, dated August 24th, 1821, for 2000 dollars, payable to the defendant, or order, at the Utica Bank, ninety days after date, and discounted by the plaintiffs. The cause was tried at the Oneida Circuit, October 4th, 1824, before Betts, C. Judge. The signatures of the maker and endorser being admitted, the plaintiffs called Thomas Colling , proved the usual demand and notice. ; as a witness,who The defendant’s counsel then stated their defence to he, that the note was…

1Opinion of the Court

Curia, per Savage, Ch. Justice.

The obligation of Col-ling to produce the books, upon the duces tecum, depends on the question, whether they were in his possession and and under his control. He was the mere clerk of the plaintiffs; and, in that character, had no such property, in, or possession of the books, as imposed the obligation to bring them. They were under the control of the cashier, who might forbid their removal, or place them beyond the reach of the witness.

It does not appear that the general direction from the cashier, and the custom of the bank, wore the best evidence in the power…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Wertheim v. Continental Ry. & Trust Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1883
  2. Ex parte BrownMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879
  3. Robbins v. DavisU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1847
  4. Adams v. BushNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
  5. Caldwell v. McVicarSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1852

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