Burrall v. De Groot
The Superior Court of New York City
This action comes before the court, on an appeal by De Groot, from a judgment entered upon a verdict recovered against him, by the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
This action comes before the court, on an appeal by De Groot, from a judgment entered upon a verdict recovered against him, by the plaintiff. It was tried before Mr. Justice Slosson and a jury, the 30th of March, 1855. The pleadings were as follows: Plaintiff avers that the defendant, Patón, heretofore, for value received, made his promissory note in writing, dated July 10,1854, whereby, four months after date thereof, he promised to pay to the order of the defendants, Joseph Carpenter and George R. Jaques, under their firm name of Carpenter & Jaques, one thousand dollars; that said firm of…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Bosworth, J.
complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The averment that Patón made the note, is equivalent to saying that he signed it and delivered it to the payees.
The allegations that the payees andDe Groot “severallyendorsed said note, in blank, and that the same, so endorsed, was delivered to plaintiff, who now holds and owns the same,” would, on a liberal construction of language, be understood to mean, that the payees endorsed it to De Groot, and that he endorsed it to the plaintiff. (Code, § 467 and § 159.)
This language of the complaint should be most liberally construed,…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Stacey Cheese Co. v. PipkinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Bates v. RosekransNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Gunn v. MadiganWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Merritt v. GouleyNew York Supreme Court · 1890
- McClenahan v. . CottenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1880
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.