Bedell v. . Carll
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the Supreme Court. The action was on a promissory note made by one Edward Berry, and delivered for value to Aaron H. Bedell in his lifetime. The plaintiff, who was the daughter of Aaron H. Bedell, claimed to be the owner and holder of the note, and as such, to recover in this action.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the Supreme Court. The action was on a promissory note made by one Edward Berry, and delivered for value to Aaron H. Bedell in his lifetime. The plaintiff, who was the daughter of Aaron H. Bedell, claimed to be the owner and holder of the note, and as such, to recover in this action. The action was originally commenced against Berry, but on motion, Carll and Scudder, executors of Aaron H. Bedell, who had died subsequently to the alleged transfer of the note to the plaintiff, were substituted as defendants in his place, under sec. 122 of the Code. Berry paid to the…
1Opinion of the CourtWeight, J.
There is no tenable exception in the case. The making of the note by Berry, and that the amount claimed was due upon it, were facts admitted by the pleadings ; the defendants, in their answer, only putting in issue the plaintiff’s ownership of it. On the trial, she produced the note, and proved the indorsement of her father, from whom she obtained it. This was enough. The possession of the note at the trial, indorsed in blank by the payee, was prima facie evidence of title, and certainly to enable the plaintiff to recover, she was not required to show affirmatively the way in which she became…
2Cited by45 opinions
- Conaughty v. . NicholsNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Crawfordsville Trust Co. v. RamseyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1913
- Smith v. FergusonIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
- Noble v. GardenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Smith v. DorseyIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.