Dimock v. United States National Bank
Supreme Court of New Jersey
This suit was brought upon a note, of which the following is a copy: “ $50,000. New York, April 15, 1884. “ Four months after date without grace, we promise to pay to the United States Hational Bank, or order, at its office in the City of New York, the sum of Fifty thousand 00-100 for value received, with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum payable — having deposited herewith, and pledged as collateral security to the holder thereof, the following properly, viz: “…
Read the full summary
This suit was brought upon a note, of which the following is a copy: “ $50,000. New York, April 15, 1884. “ Four months after date without grace, we promise to pay to the United States Hational Bank, or order, at its office in the City of New York, the sum of Fifty thousand 00-100 for value received, with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum payable — having deposited herewith, and pledged as collateral security to the holder thereof, the following properly, viz: “ 200 shares Bankers & Merchants Tel. Stock. “ 200 “ Missouri Pacific R. R. Stock. “ 200 “ Delaware, Lac. & W. R. R.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Depue, J.
The note on which this suit was brought was in terms made payable in four months after date. It became due August 15th, 1884. This suit was brought May 21st, 1891. The suit was in all respects regular, and its regularity was in no wise dependent upon that paragraph in the pledge of securities which, upon certain conditions, accelerated the maturity of the note and made the money payable at a time earlier than that named on its face.
The securities pledged for the payment of the note were sold by the plaintiff on the 15th of May, 1884, as the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Markham v. . JaudonNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Baker v. . DrakeNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Galigher v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Wright v. . Bank of the MetropolisNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
3Cited by7 opinions
- Early-Foster Co. v. Mid-Tex Oil MillsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
- Hedges v. BurkeTennessee Supreme Court · 1922
- BAYER v. Airlift International, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1970
- Central Teresa Sugar Co. of Maryland v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
- Central Teresa Sugar Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.