Butterworth v. Kennedy
The Superior Court of New York City
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered against him on the verdict of a jury. The action was tried before Mr. Justice Woodruff and a jury, in March, 1859. The plaintiff was duly appointed a Receiver of the property and effects of the Island City Bank, on the 25th of September, 1857, (it being then an insolvent moneyed corporation.) The suit is brought on a note alleged to be parcel of the assets of said bank, of which note the following is a copy: “ $400.…
Read the full summary
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered against him on the verdict of a jury. The action was tried before Mr. Justice Woodruff and a jury, in March, 1859. The plaintiff was duly appointed a Receiver of the property and effects of the Island City Bank, on the 25th of September, 1857, (it being then an insolvent moneyed corporation.) The suit is brought on a note alleged to be parcel of the assets of said bank, of which note the following is a copy: “ $400. New York, Aug’st 24th, 1856. “ Six months after date, I promise to pay to Wm. Stebbins, Cash’r, or order, four hundred…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court—Bosworth, Ch. J.
The note in suit was discounted by the Island City Bank, for the defendant, on the security of a pledge of twenty shares of its own capital stock.
The note has not been paid, and the pledgee, or its legal representative, still holds the stock and owns the note.
There is no rule of law or equity which declares these facts to be a defense, either total or partial.
*147The 6th section of 1 Revised Statutes, 591, did not make it the absolute duty of the directors of the Island City Bank to sell this stock, even though the note was not paid within sixty days after its…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Sonoma Valley Bank v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- De Cordova v. . BarnumNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- De Cordova v. BarnumNew York Supreme Court · 1890