Leavitt v. . Putnam
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the superior court of the city of New-York, where the action was against Putnam and others, as the indorsers of a promissory note. The plaintiff was nonsuited on the trial, and after judgment he appealed to this court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the superior court of the city of New-York, where the action was against Putnam and others, as the indorsers of a promissory note. The plaintiff was nonsuited on the trial, and after judgment he appealed to this court. (See 1 Sandf, Superior Court Rep. 199.) I. The legal effect of a blank indorsement of a note past due, is the same as that of one bm fore maturity, with but one difference, that, as in the former case, the note can not be presented at its maturity, the contract then is to pay on demand of the maker, his failure to pay, and notice to the indorser, within a reasonable…
1Opinion of the CourtHurlbut, J.
On the 29th day of August, 1844, Messrs. J. W. & R. Leavitt made their note for $1570,52, payable to the order of T. Putnam & Co. (the defendants) eight months after date. A few days after the maturity of the note, the defendants indorsed it as follows: “Pay the within to A, Thacher, value received, May 21, 1845. T. Putnam & Co. ” Thacher indorsed without recourse, and delivered the note for a valuable consideration to the American Exchange Bank, in whose behalf this action is brought.
On the trial the defendants urged, among other grounds of objection to the plaintiff’s recovery, that the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Berry v. RobinsonNew York Supreme Court · 1812
3Cited by10 opinions
- Turner v. Iron Chief Mining Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1889
- Carpenter v. GreenopMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Beer v. CliftonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- First National Bank of Chicago v. Reno County BankUnited States Circuit Court · 1880
- Lessen v. LindseyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.