Harrington v. Dorr
The Superior Court of New York City
This action was brought against the defendant as indorser of six promissory notes, hearing different dates, payable at different times, (though all made on the same day,) and in the following form: “ $500.00. Northfield, January 15th, 1858. Eight months after date, we promise to pay to the order of James A. Dorr, five hundred dollars, at No. 34 Pine street, New York city. The Northfield Brick Company, by James A. Doer, Treasurer.” Indorsed, “ Protest waived, James A. Doer.”
Read the full summary
This action was brought against the defendant as indorser of six promissory notes, hearing different dates, payable at different times, (though all made on the same day,) and in the following form: “ $500.00. Northfield, January 15th, 1858. Eight months after date, we promise to pay to the order of James A. Dorr, five hundred dollars, at No. 34 Pine street, New York city. The Northfield Brick Company, by James A. Doer, Treasurer.” Indorsed, “ Protest waived, James A. Doer.” The defense set up in the answer, so far as involved in the trial, was that the defendant indorsed the notes for the…
1Opinion of the Court
Robertson, Ch. J.
The notes in suit in this case having been passed away by the person for whose accommodation they were indorsed by the defendant (Myers) after they became due, in satisfaction of a debt due by such person to the plaintiff, by a memorandum above the defendant's name, the protest of such notes was waived, which includes a waiver of demand also, (Coddington v. Davis, 1 N. Y. Rep. 186;) and his undertaking, instead of being conditional, became thereby absolute as if he were a joint maker. It is claimed on behalf of the defendant, that by implication of law the use of such notes…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Coddington v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1848
3Cited by2 opinions
- Miller v. LarnedIllinois Supreme Court · 1882
- Naef v. PotterAppellate Court of Illinois · 1906