Woodbury v. Sackrider
New York Supreme Court
, Appeal from an order at special term over-ruling a demurrer to a complaint. This action was brought by Norman Sackrider against William and Henry Woodbury, and Todd, Ohisam and Pomeroy, as drawers, by their firm name of Woodbury, Todd & Co., and Pomeroy, Thompson and Skillman, as acceptors, under their firm name of Thompson, Skillman & Co., of two drafts.
Read the full summary
, Appeal from an order at special term over-ruling a demurrer to a complaint. This action was brought by Norman Sackrider against William and Henry Woodbury, and Todd, Ohisam and Pomeroy, as drawers, by their firm name of Woodbury, Todd & Co., and Pomeroy, Thompson and Skillman, as acceptors, under their firm name of Thompson, Skillman & Co., of two drafts. The complaint alleged the making and acceptance of the drafts, both drafts being declared upon together in one count only ;*and proceeded to aver, “ that payment of both of said drafts was duly demanded at maturity, and that the same were…
1Opinion of the CourtBocees, J.
This is a demurrer to the complaint. The action is against the drawers and acceptors of two drafts. The complaint alleges the receiving and accepting of the drafts, demand thereof at maturity, their non-payment, and that they were duly protested. It also alleges that the plaintiff is the owner and holder, and that the defendants are justly indebted to him thereon.
The complaint also states, that the drafts were endorsed by the plaintiff, and that notice of protest was duly given to the endorsers. The plaintiff insists that by a clerical error in drawing the complaint, the word “ endorsers” was…
2Cited by6 opinions
- May v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Cook v. . WarrenNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Demelman v. BrazierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Muser v. RobertsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1883
- Chemical National Bank v. CarpentierNew York Supreme Court · 1881
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.