Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. Cleveland, Columbus & Cincinnati Railroad
New York Supreme Court
This action was brought to recover the amount due on one hundred and forty coupons, originally attached to twenty bonds issued by the Columbus, Piqua & Indiana Railroad Company, the payment of which was guaranteed by the defendants by written indorsements on the bonds, guaranteeing the payment of principal and interest.
Read the full summary
This action was brought to recover the amount due on one hundred and forty coupons, originally attached to twenty bonds issued by the Columbus, Piqua & Indiana Railroad Company, the payment of which was guaranteed by the defendants by written indorsements on the bonds, guaranteeing the payment of principal and interest. The defendants set up in their answer that the guarantees were unauthorized, and without consideration, and that the plaintiffs had notice of it; also that the bonds were purchased from the Piqua company by one William Dennison, jr., for less than their par value, and that he…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court, Sutherland, Justice.
The bonds are payable in the city of New York, to Elias Fassett, or holder. They are negotiable, passing by delivery, and would have been had they been under seal. Their negotiability was *237assumed if not decided in Zabriskie agt. The Cleveland, Columbus & Cincinnati R. R. Co. (23 How. U. S. R. 400.)
Similar bonds have repeatedly been held by the courts to be negotiable. It was so held or assumed recently by the court of appeals of this state, in an action on one or more Harlem railroad bonds under seal, I believe. (See also Redfield'on Rail. §239, and cases…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Douglass v. HowlandNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Mowry v. BishopNew York Court of Chancery · 1835
- Kellogg v. HickokNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Williams v. ShermanNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Hastings v. WiswallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.