Robinson v. . Howes
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Superior Court of Buffalo. Hpon the trial the defendants, to establish a set-off, proved these facts. On the 29th August, 1857, the Hollister Bank of Buffalo, of which the plaintiff was receiver, discounted a sight draft made by one Monteath on Grant, Sayles & Ford of Hew York, and passed the amount to Monteath’s credit. Two days afterwards the Hollister Bank failed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Buffalo. Hpon the trial the defendants, to establish a set-off, proved these facts. On the 29th August, 1857, the Hollister Bank of Buffalo, of which the plaintiff was receiver, discounted a sight draft made by one Monteath on Grant, Sayles & Ford of Hew York, and passed the amount to Monteath’s credit. Two days afterwards the Hollister Bank failed. Grant, Sayles & Ford were informed of the fact and advised by Monteath not to accept the draft. It was protested, and Mbnteath, on the 21st of September, 1857, assigned to the defendants his claim against the…
1Opinion of the Court
The set-off claimed by the defendants was properly disallowed by the court. This was for a credit given by the Hollister Bank to Monteath, upon the discount by the bank for him of his draft payable at sight, drawn upon Grant, Sayles Ford of New York. The draft was duly presented to the payees, and payment refused, pursuant to the advice of Monteath to Messrs. Grant, Sayles Ford. This gave the bank the right to balance the credit by charging Monteath with the draft in his account. The defendants, as assignees of Monteath, had no greater rights than his assignor. Monteath, upon the discount of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Jones v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- Marsh v. Oneida Central BankNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- New Amsterdam Savings Bank v. TartterNew York Supreme Court · 1877