Kirtland v. Wanzer
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an action by the plaintiff as endorsee against the defendants as first and second endorsers of two promissory notes made by McConnell & Brothers, and payable 12 months after date to the order of Wanzer, Minor & Co., at the office of Rich.
Read the full summary
This was an action by the plaintiff as endorsee against the defendants as first and second endorsers of two promissory notes made by McConnell & Brothers, and payable 12 months after date to the order of Wanzer, Minor & Co., at the office of Rich. McConnell, Esq., in New Orleans. .The defendants, in their answer, denied that the notes had been duly presented for payment or duly protested, and also set up new matter as a defence which it is unnecessary to notice, as it was abandoned on the trial. This cause came on to be tried, in its order, on the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Emmet, J.
The statute of Louisiana, by its terms, makes the certificate of the notary legal proof of the facts which it embraces, only in the courts of that State, and were its provisions not thus limited, so far from being under any obligation to obey, we should be bound to disregard them. There are many cases in which a foreign law must be followed as a rule of decision upon the rights of the parties, but none in which it can be permitted to control and supersede our own rules of evidence.
Setting aside the statute, then, we are clearly' of opinion, that the protests and certificates of the notary at…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Vaughan v. PotterAppellate Court of Illinois · 1907
- Burk v. ShreveSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1877
- Cribbs v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1859