Adams v. . Leland
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a Judgment of the Superior Court of the City of New York. The defendants were sued as endorsers of a promissory note as follows: “$6,000. “ÍsTew York, February 12, 1857. “ On the 20th June next, without grace, we promise,, to pay to James Moore, or order, six thousand dollars, for valued received, with interest, at the rate of seven per cent, per annum; having deposited with J. Thompson, as collateral security, with authority to sell the same at the broker’s…
Read the full summary
Appeal from a Judgment of the Superior Court of the City of New York. The defendants were sued as endorsers of a promissory note as follows: “$6,000. “ÍsTew York, February 12, 1857. “ On the 20th June next, without grace, we promise,, to pay to James Moore, or order, six thousand dollars, for valued received, with interest, at the rate of seven per cent, per annum; having deposited with J. Thompson, as collateral security, with authority to sell the same at the broker’s board, or at public or private sale, or otherwise, at his option, on the non-performance of this promise, and without…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
I am of the opinion that the non-suit was properly denied. The note was dated at New York, and the place of business of the makers when it was given, was at No. 110 Broadway. It seems that when payable (and unknown to the holder), the firm of Seymour, Moore & Co. (the makers), had been ■ dissolved, and a new firm (Seymour, Morton & Co.), had succeeded them in business at the same place. There was a person in attendance in the office from whom the notary demanded payment, but who refused to pay, saying he had no money, and referred him to a Mr. Lincoln, an agent of the makers, at No. 54…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Taylor v. SnyderNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- McGruder v. Bank of WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
3Cited by2 opinions
- Brand v. BrandCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
- Salisbury v. BartlesonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888