Morris County Brick Co. v. Austin
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from Orange District Court. This is a suit on a promissory note dated June 9th, 1908, made by Virgil to the order of the plaintiff for the purchase price of bricks sold him through Austin, who was entitled to a commission upon the sale.
Read the full summary
On appeal from Orange District Court. This is a suit on a promissory note dated June 9th, 1908, made by Virgil to the order of the plaintiff for the purchase price of bricks sold him through Austin, who was entitled to a commission upon the sale. Austin endorsed the note under the following circumstances: Upon his demand for payment of his commission, the plaintiff refused to pay until the bricks were paid for by Virgil, unless Austin would endorse the note; Austin thereupon endorsed the note, and was paid his commission. The note was discounted at the bank, but was not paid at maturity and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Swayze, J.
Under section 63 of the Negotiable Instruments act (Pamph. L. 1902, p. 594), the defendant is deemed to be an endorser. Section 64, which defines the liability of an endorser, is not applicable to this case, since it applies only to one who signs in. blank before delivery. Section 65 applies only to a person negotiating an instrument and this the defendant did not do. The liability of an endorser under section 66 is only to subsequent holders. The present plaintiff is a prior, not a subsequent, holder. Independently of the statute, the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Messmore v. MeyerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1893
3Cited by12 opinions
- Blakeslee v. Board of Water CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- Pachella v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1961
- Case v. McKinnisOregon Supreme Court · 1923
- First Nat. Bank v. BachOregon Supreme Court · 1920
- Jeppesen v. Rexburg State BankIdaho Supreme Court · 1936
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.