East River Bank v. Butterworth
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from the judgment of a special term. The. action was upon a promissory note. The note sued on was lent by the maker to the indorser for his accommodation. He had it discounted by the plaintiff. When it became due, the indorser wanted to make a partial payment, and the note in suit was to be left in the bank to be collected by them. The maker was at that time absent from the state, and a new note could not be obtained for its renewal.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the judgment of a special term. The. action was upon a promissory note. The note sued on was lent by the maker to the indorser for his accommodation. He had it discounted by the plaintiff. When it became due, the indorser wanted to make a partial payment, and the note in suit was to be left in the bank to be collected by them. The maker was at that time absent from the state, and a new note could not be obtained for its renewal. Instead thereof, the indorser gave his own note for the amount unpaid, which was discounted and the note in suit left as security. This process was…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Ingraham, J.
The note having been loaned to the indorser for his accommodation without any restrictions, might be used by him for that purpose, and the holder could recover upon it, even if he had knowledge of its origin, to any amount for which he held it as security, not exceeding the sum named in the note, hi or would it make any difference whether such note was used before or after maturity, if it was in reality pledged as security for moneys borrowed by the indorser.
There can, therefore, be no other question in this case than that which arises as to the renewals of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Dunn v. WestonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1880
- Freund v. Importers & Traders' National BankNew York Supreme Court · 1878
- Grocers' Bank v. PenfieldNew York Supreme Court · 1876