Fassin v. Hubbard
New York Supreme Court
THE action was brought, in form, against the defendants, James 8. Brander-and Charles D. Hubbard, alleged to compose the firm of Brander & Hubbard, at New Orleans, as indorsers of a promissory note. Brander was not served with process, Hubbard alone was served, and defended. The note in question was made by the firm of Martin & Gilmore, at New Orleans, dated January 4, 1861, payable January 1, 1862, to the order of John H. Martin, for $5000, with interest at 8 per cent.
Read the full summary
THE action was brought, in form, against the defendants, James 8. Brander-and Charles D. Hubbard, alleged to compose the firm of Brander & Hubbard, at New Orleans, as indorsers of a promissory note. Brander was not served with process, Hubbard alone was served, and defended. The note in question was made by the firm of Martin & Gilmore, at New Orleans, dated January 4, 1861, payable January 1, 1862, to the order of John H. Martin, for $5000, with interest at 8 per cent. The, defendants’ firm, of Brander & Hubbard, was dissolved in July, 1860. ■The note in question was indorsed after such…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Cardozo, J.
This is .a plain case. The act of 1865, (Sess. Laws of 1865, ch. 309, p. 516,) provides that any bill of exchange, &c., which, by its terms, is payable in any State other than this, may be presented and protested, and notice thereof given according to the laws of the State where it is payable. It is proven, in this case, that notaries public, in.Hew Orleans, are, by statute, authorized to appoint one or more deputies to assist them in making protests and delivering notices, and that notaries are required to keep a book containing a record of protests made by them,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gawtry v. DoaneNew York Supreme Court · 1866
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lawson v. PinckneyThe Superior Court of New York City · 1875