Leonardsville Bank v. Willard
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment. The plaintiff was a hanking association formed under the general act of 1838, and brought this action against James M. Willard and George Curtiss, to charge them as indorsers of a promissory note. The answer set up usury, and also denied that the plaintiff was an incorporation under the act (which the allegations of the complaint had referred to), and denied that its corporate name was the Leonardsville Bank.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment. The plaintiff was a hanking association formed under the general act of 1838, and brought this action against James M. Willard and George Curtiss, to charge them as indorsers of a promissory note. The answer set up usury, and also denied that the plaintiff was an incorporation under the act (which the allegations of the complaint had referred to), and denied that its corporate name was the Leonardsville Bank. The answer further alleged, as a separate defence, that at the time of the commencement of the suit the bank was not a corporation, nor had it the right to sue in…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.*—Balcom, J.
(After disposing of the question of usury.) The plaintiff’s counsel introduces as evidence the original certificate of association,. which was signed and acknoAvledged by Dennis Hardin and others, to show that the plaintiff was a general banking association duly formed under the general banking law. It had been recorded in the office of the county clerk ; but the plaintiff did not give any direct evidence to show that a copy thereof had been filed in the office of the secretary of state. There was proof, however, that the plaintiff had done business as a bank, and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gillet v. . MoodyNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
- Leavitt v. . BlatchfordNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- East River Bank v. JudahNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1854