Conkling v. Gandall
New York Court of Appeals
Jonas and Theodore Conkling sued James E. Gandall, as indorser, and George L. Burdick and Charles Finn, as makers of a note. The action was in the supreme court.
Read the full summary
Jonas and Theodore Conkling sued James E. Gandall, as indorser, and George L. Burdick and Charles Finn, as makers of a note. The action was in the supreme court. The form of the complaint was as follows: “ That the defendants, Burdick and Finn, made their certain copartnership promissory note in the words and figures following, that is to say: [Copy of note made ly Burdiclc and Finn.~\ “ That the said note was indorsed as follows: “J. B. Gandall, Salem, Washington Co., N. Y.” “ That such indorsement was so made by the above named defendant, James B. Gandall. “ That the said plaintiffs are now…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Wright, J.
This judgment, I think, cannot be sustained. A complaint, under the Code, must contain “a plain and concise statement of the facts constituting a cause of action ” (Code of Pro. § 143), and it may be demurred to if it does not. § 144. Yo cause of action was stated against the defendant Gandall. The only allegation affecting him is, that he indorsed a promissory note for two hundred and fifty-six dollars and fifty-eight cents, made by the firm of Burdick & Finn, payable to his order at the bank of Fort Edward, four months after date, which the plaintiffs own and hold.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Draper v. Chase Manufacturing Co.New York Supreme Court · 1877