Ward v. Waterhouse
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an appeal from an order denying a motion to strike out the defendant’s answer as false and sham. The action was upon a promisssory note against the indorser by the indorsee.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from an order denying a motion to strike out the defendant’s answer as false and sham. The action was upon a promisssory note against the indorser by the indorsee. The complaint alleged, among other things, that prior to the maturity of the note, (upon which the action was brought,) and subsequent to the making thereof, the same was indorsed in blank, for a valuable consideration, both by the payee thereof, and by the defendant, and the same was transferred,. so indorsed, to the plaintiff, prior to such maturity, for a valuable consideration; also, “that at the maturity of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Moncrief, J.
Without proof of the presentment, demand, and nonpayment and notice to the defendant, the plaintiff cannot recover against him as the indorsee of the note. (4 Denio, 460.) In Mussina v. Stillman, (13 Abb. Pr. 93,) it was held that even where it appeared by an answer that many of the denials were only general,, it would not be *655stricken out as false. It was held, in Bailey v. Lane, (Id. 354,) that the denial by the answer of presentment, demand, protest and notice, was sufficient, and it should stand, The denial in the answer of notice of such steps having been taken,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Warnick v. CraneNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Mussina v. StillmanNew York Supreme Court · 1861