Wies v. Sultzer
New York Marine Court
The plaintiffs, bankers, doing business under the firm name oí Lassing, Wies & Co:, loaned to one Kraus, the sum of §1,000, upon his note for that amount, indorsed by the defendant, Charles Sultzer. When the note became due, Sultzer was in Europe, and it was protested for non-payment.
Read the full summary
The plaintiffs, bankers, doing business under the firm name oí Lassing, Wies & Co:, loaned to one Kraus, the sum of §1,000, upon his note for that amount, indorsed by the defendant, Charles Sultzer. When the note became due, Sultzer was in Europe, and it was protested for non-payment. Kraus, the maker, and the plaintiffs, the holders, then made an agreement whereby, in consideration of the sum of $50 paid them by Kraus, they extended the time for payment of the note, for fifteen days, without the consent or knowledge of Sultzer. The^note not being paid at the expiration of the'fifteen days,…
1Opinion of the CourtMcAdam, J.
Judgement was entered against Sultzer, the indorser, who alone appeals, and the first question presented for consideration is whether the agreement alleged by him, if made, operated to discharge him from his obligations as indorser of the note in suit. That $50 was paid to Bernard, as the plaintiffs’ agent, to induce an extension of the time to pay the note is undisputed, and the extension bargained for seems to have been granted. That, if legal, this extension, without the indorser’s consent, operated to discharge him, there can be no doubt, and we will assume that the acts of Bernard were…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Thurston v. . CornellNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Vilas & Bacon v. Jones & PiercyNew York Court of Appeals · 1848
- Real Estate Trust Company v. . KeechNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Williams v. . FitzhughNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Bank of Utica v. IvesNew York Supreme Court · 1837
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.